MASTER 
NEGATIVE — 
NO. 91-80190-9 


MICROFILMED 1992 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 


| as part of the 
”*Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project” 


Funded by the 
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 


Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
Columbia University Library 


COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 


The copyright law of the United States -- Title 17, United 
States Code -- concerns the making of photocopies or other 
reproductions of copyrighted material... 


Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to 


accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
would involve violation of the copyright law. 


AUTHOR: 


SMITH, CHARLES F. 


TITLE: 


STUDY OF PLUTARCH'S 
_IFE OF ARTAXERXES 


| PLACE: 


LEIPZIG 


DATE: 


1881 


Master Negative # 


_4- δ0[60 - 7 


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 


Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 


| re --.ςς..ςςςς.ς-.. 
[ 88} 71 
2 


Smith, Charles Forster, 1852-1931. 


A study of Plutarch’s Life of Artaxerxes, with especial ref- 
erence to the sources... Leipzig, Printed by Metzger ἃ Wit- 
tig, 1881. 


ip. 1, 566p,11. 22@. 


Inaug.-diss.—Leipzig. 
Vita. 


Volume of pamphlets. 
Another copy. Volume of pamphlets. 


1. Artaxerxes 1, king of Persia, d. wn. c. 425? 2. Plutarchus. Vitae. 
parallelae, Artax-rxe:, 


19—19912 
Library of Congress ' DS284.P7S6 


Restrictions on Use: 
TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 


FILM SIZE: 35 MM REDUCTION RATIO: 
IMAGE PLACEMENT: IA (1 ΤᾺ 18 ΠΒ 

DATE FILMED: 2}: INITIALS “Y)z {5 
FILMED BY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS, INC_WOODBRIDGE, CT 


-- 


Association for Information and Image Management 


1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 


301/587-8202 


Centimeter 
1 2 12 13 14 15 mm 


2 3 
Inches l io " [28 


NO 
ὧι 


mg τ 


NO 
NO 


Σ Wes 


Wes 


WZ et | 


NO 
© 


| Ean ES 


MANUFACTURED TO AIIM STANDARDS 
BY APPLIED IMAGE, INC. 


ee fa πξ  Sikaaael 


A STUDY OF PLUTARCEES 
LIFE OF ARTAXERXES 


WITH ESPECIAL 
REFERENCE TO THE SOURCES. 


FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE DEGREE 
QO} 


DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY FROM LEIPZIG UNIVERSITY 


A DISSERTATION 


CHARLES FORSTER SMITH 


OF SPARTANBURG (S. C.) U.S. A. 


LEIPZIG 
PRINTED BY METZGER & WITTIG. 


1881. 


An investigation of the sources used by Plutarch in the 
life of Artaxerxes is attended with much difficulty. Though 
one has little doubt after reading the Life that he will have 
to do mainly with Ctesias and Dinon, yet the meagre 
excerpts from Ctesias (in Photius) on the one hand 
offer little, and the fragments of Dinon on the other 
almost no opportunity of making a comparison. With 
regard to Heraclides, who is once mentioned in the 
Life, we are still worse off. As to Xenophon, a compari- 
son only proves that what Plutarch has from him in the 
Artaxerxes was taken principally at second hand through 
some other source. 

It seems to me however that the Life bears many 
marks of a general use of one leading authority by Plu- 
tarch and that his mention of other authors is generally 
owing to these being cited either in praise or blame by 


his general guide — not an unusual thing with him. This 
is the general principle by which I have been guided in 
the investigation, but after all it must be confessed that 


the question is largely one of probabilities. 

Haug’s ἢ work.seems to me to have settled many points 
ἢ which Plutarch is indebted to Ctesias, but errs, I believe, 
in assigning too much to this source a natural conse- 


quence of the assumption that Ctesias was the leading 
authority for the first 20 chapters. 


1) M. Haug, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Lebensbeschreibungen der 


Griechen, 87 ff. Tiibingen 1854. 


| 
| 


ii 


2 
the other hand he does not give Dinon sufficient 
what he contributed to the former half of the 
rx does he attempt by a close investigation of sep- 
thapters to show that Dinon was, what he assumes, 
f source for the latter half. Schottin") has in the 
lowed Haug and has added nothing really of value 
investigation of the sources. It seems to me we are 
by Plutarch’s bearing toward Ctesias to suspect in 
the leading source for the whole Life, and a close 
ition confirms the opinion. 
the proper place 1 will attempt to account for the 
Plutarch’s narration of the battle and its imme- 
sequences at the Persian court is almost entirely 
tesias. The account of the battle seems to me to 
light upon the character of Ctesias as a historian. 


discovery of the cuneiform inscriptions prove Hero- 


to have been nearly always right, while Ctesias must 


. 


itended wilfully to deceive; so here a close compar- 


ith Xenophon’s masterly description of the battle of 


leaves no doubt in my mind that Ctesias was guilty 
perversion of facts, in order to give a dramatic 
of the fall of Cyrus. I have therefore devoted the 
part of this dissertation to a consideration of the 
iccounts of the battle, taking issue mainly with 
mel in his two interesting articles in Philolo- 


XXXIV. Without further introduction I proceed now 


consideration of the different sources. 


» Plutarchi Vita Artaxerxis. 


DINON. 


MULLER, Hist. Graec. Frag. II. 88 seqq. 


With regard to Dinon’s native land we have only the 
fact that he is cited several times by Pliny (Nat. Hist. — 
cf. Schaefer, Quellenkunde der griech. Geschichte 60) as 
Dinon Colophonius. C. Miiller [Clit. Frag. 74. — Anhang zu 
Arrian (ed. Diibner, Paris 1846)| thinks that for some time 
he lived in Egypt, at least that his son Clitarch was born 
there. The work of his with which we have to do was entitled 


Περσιχά and extended from the foundation of the Assyrian 


monarchy (fr. 1) to the Conquest of Egypt by Artaxerxes 
Ochus 340 B. C. (fr. 30). He seems to have been the chief 
source for Plutarch in the life of Artaxerxes, for the latter 
never censures him, as he does Ctesias, though the frag- 
ments which we have from him seem scarcely to justify 
that confidence. ‘The only advantage he seems to enjoy 
over Ctesias in point of historical fidelity is that no instance 
of willful falsehood is recorded against him, while several 
seem pretty evident against Ctesias. For the expedition of 
Cyrus, so far as he treated of it, Dinon’s authority was no 
doubt Xenophon, and for affairs at the Persian court one 
of his sources was probably the physician Polycritus men- 
tioned in c. 21 of the Artaxerxes. 

It is a disputed question whether the Polycritus Men- 
daeus there mentioned was the same as the author of a 


1* 


+ 


cilian affairs, though it is not improbable that 


Miller, Anhang zu Arrian 129 note). 


τ. Frag. under Dinon; and again under Po- 
ine zu Arrian 129) also advances the opinion 

icquainted with the history of Ctesias and 
riginally flowed, in part at least, Plut irch’s 
of Tesias. he strongest evidence οἱ this 
charge advanced against Ctesias in c. 21 
lows: λέγεται δὲ ὃ Κτησίας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν 


i i 


κι, πὰ ἡ 
' 
~ 1 ‘ , > 


Q δὲ Κτησίας αὐτὸν ag ἑαυτοῦ βασιλέα 
ὐ ἡ Ξἰτουργιᾶν αὐτῷ ταύτην. 
was evidently made by some one acquain- 
narration of the negotiations between 
king. The author was besides no doubt 
ed that Conon’s letter was to be deliv- 
only in case neither Polycritus nor Zeno 
for it is not at all probable that Ctesias’ 


nity would have allowed him to make such a 


out himselt. Besides we see from exc. 63 Ol 
Ctesias stated, that a letter had already been 


by Conon, before the one alluded to by 


id that he had spoken to the king concerning 


ely that he, who claimed to have been 
ndly correspondence with and engaged in 
Conon, would state that he gave such an 
ut the delivery of his letter. 
was constantly before Plutarch in this lite 
in the next chapter, and certainly wrote about 
non with the Persians (Cornelius Nepos, 
thermore because the censures which Plu- 


ἃ against Ctesias in c’s I, 6 and 13 
introduced as differing from Ctesias, caus¢ 
n Dinon an unfriendly disposition toward 


inclined to look to him as the author of 


Then we find, I have no doubt, in c. 13 the expla- 
nation of Conon’s injunction, namely that Ctesias was a 
philo-lacone, and Conon feared to intrust, except in case - 
of necessity, to a partisan of Sparta a letter the object of 
which was to win the alliance of the king against the 
Spartans.') After noticing in c’s 1 and 6 the severe criti- 
cisms uttered against Ctesias, just where Dinon is repre- 
sented as differing from him and where there can be little 
doubt that he is the author of the criticisms, it seems clear 
that we have in c. 13 two more instances of censure of 
Ctesias on the part of Dinon, and an appeal to Xenophon’s 
authority. In the one case, as to the number of the royal 
troops, Plutarch says there may be doubt, but the other he 
brands as false. I believe then that this charge against 
Ctesias of being a philo-lacone explains Conon’s direction 
about his letter, and that the author for the charge in c. 13 
is Dinon. In c. 19 we have very probably some more 
specimens of Dinon’s detail faultfinding with Ctesias. In 
c. 22 Dinon mentions the hatred of the king toward the 
Spartans, and the further relation of the conduct of Antal- 
cidas at the Persian court seems to betray the opponent 
of Sparta, whom we recognize in the charge of philola- 
conism in c. 13. From the manner in which Plutarch used 
Ctesias as authority in c’s 11, 12, 14—Ig it seems more 
natural to seek the source for his harsh criticisms of that 
one in some other than himself. Besides it is hardly chance 
that these two differ so constantly and in such slight par- 
ticulars, and that Plutarch introduces so often the opposing 
statements of just these two out of all the number who 
wrote about many of these events. 

Of Dinon’s use of Xenophon we have almost absolute 
proof in the following passage from c. 13: “The accounts 
of Dinon and Xenophon make the combatants far more.” 
It is not distinctly affirmed that Xenophon and Dinon gave 
the same number, but it is implied, and we may confidently 


1) See also Rettig, Ctesiae Cnidii vita p. 19. 


6 


hat the number 900,000 is not here opposed to 
00 of Ctesias, simply because that number had 
been given in c. 7. There are besides several pas- 
which Plutarch relates the same things that Xe- 
id told, only a little fuller, as if the latter had 
ipplemented from the Persian side; in some instances 
| words of Xenophon being found, where 
he was not the source, directly at 

‘se passages will be considered under 

Dinon’s use of Xenophon would, 

great admiration of that author and his 

x historical integrity, tend to inspire Plutarch’s 

ind induce him to trust more readily to Dinon’s 
Ctesias; and this is probably one explanation of 

t that Plutarch not once finds fault with Dinon, but 
; Ctesias repeatedly and sometimes seemingly without 
egard to Plutarch’s general manner of using his 

F. Hermann (de fontibus vitae Periclis p. IV 
says: “Si quem auctorem Plutarchus nominat, 
ntandi causa facit, neque ut fidem narrationi suae 
rem conciliet, sed aut eorum, quorum veritatem 
iestare nolit, fontem indicaturus, aut ubi res in con- 


ia posita est iudicium suum testimonio suo confir- 


5 


in narrando autem nisi quid ambigue relictum sit 
aliena tamquam sua usurpare non dubitat.” So 
of Pericles Stesimbrotus Thasius and Duris of 


vhom he names oftenest, he really uses least of all, 


hucydides and Ephorus he follows generally without 

them; so he followed Xenophon in various lives, 

» he seems to have used Dinon in the greater part 

life. — After these general remarks we enter into an 
vestigation of the chapters separately. 

1. It is strange that Plutarch while accepting the 

uthority of Ctesias with regard to the name of Artaxerxes 

before he became king, should yet for the brothers of the 


Ostanes and Oxathres, have adopted totally different 


7 


forms from those given by Ctesias. Certainly Ostanes differs 
as much from Artostes, as Arsikas from Oarses, and. Ctesias 
had as good apportunity to know the correct form of the 
one as of the other. The explanation I imagine to be this: 
with regard to the king’s name, which went out of use 
after he ascended the throne, Plutarch could depend best 
upon Ctesias, the physician of the king, who had the best 
opportunities to know; but with regard to the others it 
was different, as they continued to bear the same names. 
The form Ostanes is found in Diodorus XVII, 5 and Oxa- 
thres in XVII, 34. These seem to have been then the forms 
of the names in common use, among the Greeks at least, 
and this fact probably decided Plutarch’s choice. It is 
noteworthy that these same forms occur again in c. 5, 
where there is great probability that Dinon was before 
Plutarch, and Ostanes again in c. 22 where Dinon is intro- 
duced by name, though not in connection with Ostanes of 
course.) The case becomes more probable for Dinon as 
source for these names when we compare the manner in 
which he differed from Ctesias in this chapter with regard 


to the name Oarses, and in c. 19 as to Melantias. The 


phrase Δαρείου yap xat Παρυσάτιδος παῖδες ἐγένοντο τέσσαρες, 
πρεσβύτατος μὲν ᾿Αρτοξέρξης, μετ ἐχε Κῦρος 15 taken 
from the opening sentence of Xenophon’s Anabasis, but 
there is no other trace of Xenophon in this chapter; in 
this very sentence, however, occur the names Ostanes and 
Oxathres, and the best explanation seems to be, that this 
sentence, as Plutarch has it, came from Xenophon through 
Dinon. The manner in which Dinon is introduced here 
(“although Dinon says that he was called Oarses”) seems 


1) We must be careful, however, not to take too readily the form of 
these names as conclusive evidence, wherever they occur, that Ctesias was 
not the authority, for in C. 17 where Plutarch relates the story of the 
punishment of the eunuch Μασαβάτης, Ctesias was almost certainly 
the authority of Plutarch, though the eunuch was called by Ctesias Baya- 


TAT S- 


Sh 


ὃ 


4 contradiction of Ctesias by Dinon, and the harsh 


which follows originated no doubt with him. 


~ ἵ / c ~ ‘ γ- “ἡ « ~ 
H δὲ μητὴρ ὑπῆρχε τὸν Κῦρον υυᾶλλον Ψιλοῦσα 
Ὶ i iy iv fv i ἱ j 


| Ξύειν ἐχεῖνον originated no doubt in Anab 

[he following statement, that Cyrus having been 
by his father went up to him, seems to have ref- 
Anab. I, 1, 2; but of the remainder, that he 
be appointed to the kingdom, Xenophon says 
as he knows nothing of the intrigues of Cyrus 


his favor. Here then in two successive chapters 


words of Xenophon are used to form parts of 


which contain yet other statements of which he 
othing. 

excerpts of Photius Ctesias makes no allusion to 

Cyrus, or the intrigues of his mother, yet it 


range that the excerptor should have omitted 


nportant statements, if Ctesias had made them. There 


evident in Ctesias, as in Xenophon, a desire 


case of Cyrus in as favorable a light as pos- 


ey agree so nearly in their narration of these occur- 


ι 


that it seems only natural to suppose they must 
1 the same motive. They both mention simply the 


ition of Cyrus by Tissaphernes, from which accusation 


says that his mother “begged him off”, Ctesias, 
that he “was acquitted of the charge” by his 

It may be noticed further that in the scene where 
makes the messenger announce to Parysatis the 
f Cyrus (Dem. Phal. de Eloc. § 222—223), when he 


that Cyrus was victorious and that the king had fled, 


a 
L 


if 


C 
lhe 


inctly assigned the blame for all the evil that had 
the king to Tissaphernes, as if his false accusation 
dishonor which fell upon Cyrus in consequence, 
sole causes of the insurrection of the latter. 

it is that the case against Cyrus is stated much more 
in this and the following chapters of Plutarch, than 


tesias or Xenophon gave it. 


allusion to Demaratus is a still further indication 


9 


against the use of Ctesias here, for we see from exc. 23, 
that Ctesias said that Demaratus came to Xerxes first at 
Abydus, when he was marching against Greece, while this 
account assumes that he was at the Persian court, before 
the expedition of Darius into Greece. Herodotus (VII, 3 
states that on the advice of Demaratus, who went to Susa 
while Darius was still alive, Xerxes was appointed to the 
throne to the exclusion of an elder brother, who was born 
before Darius became king. It is not at all improbable 
that the statement of Ctesias with regard to Demaratus 
was meant to be a contradiction of Herodotus, as was so 
often the case in his history, and that we have here Dinon’s 
contradiction of Ctesias in turn. 

If in this connection the beginning of c. 26 be read, 
we find a marked similarity in the occurences, related, with 
a manifest reference to this place, for there it is said: “The 
well disposed thought that, as he had received it, so he 
ought to leave the kingdom to Darius as right of the eldest;” 
and the attempt of Cyrus to come into power through the 
‘nfluence of his mother is just the parallel to that of Ochus 
to get the haan by the assistance of Atossa,; whence 
we might infer the same authority in both passages. 

C. 8. The allusion to Athena looks to Dinon, inasmuch 
as we should expect from Ctesias the Persian name of the 
deity. See also in this connection the allusion to Hera in 
c. 23 and to Aytemis in c. 27. These Greek names for 
Persian deities are just what we would expect from the 
sraecising Dinon. The whole consecration scene is assigned 
by Haug to Ctesias, because “the account — one well 
acquainted with Persian customs and usages,” but in this 
he can hardly be correct. In the excerpts of Ctesias there 
‘s no allusion to this scene, and it seems hardly probable 
the excerptor would have omitted it, had Ctesias described 
‘t. Besides, the words of Plutarch: “Some say, that the 
arrest was made after this accusation, others that Cyrus 
went into the temple and was betrayed in his concealment 
by the priest”, show that more than one author described 


oo “-- 


scene. It may be accepted at any rate that Ctesias 

not make the statement that Cyrus was betrayed in 
place of concealment by the priest, for in that case he 
uld not well have said that Cyrus was “acquitted of the 
harge”. That Dinon had written about this scene seems 
clear if we compare with c. 6. There Dinon states that 


Parysatis plotted against and murdered Stateira, being angry 


on account of her reproaches with regard to the 
ssion for Cyrus on this occasion. 

From the connection it is clear that Dinon was at 
t in part authority for the statement of Stateira’s re- 
iches which aroused in Parysatis so deadly a hatred, 
he must then also have narrated the scene to which 
reproaches refer, that is, the accusation of Tissapher- 

ind the intercession of Parysatis. 

[he allusions here and in c. 6 to Cyrus’ knowledge 
Magism are significant, if we compare with fragm. 5, 5, 
10 of Dinon, from which it is evident that he paid con- 
rable attention to this religion. 

/, Mildness is represented as a quality of Artaxerxes 

2, 4 and 30, in the last Dinon being without doubt 
wuthority. On the other hand the first act of his men- 
tioned by Ctesias was ‘one of exceeding cruelty (exc. 57). 
p. 91) says: “Die Schilderung von Artaxerxes Cha- 

ikter, die seine Tugenden in das glanzendste Licht stellt, 
rrath den Ktesias. Dinon war sicherlich ein Lobredner 
Kénigs, dem er so. viel zu verdanken hatte.” This | 
doubtful. The sympathies of Ctesias were with Cyrus 
Clearchus. In addition to what is stated above with 
rard to his position toward Cyrus, consider the manner 
n which he denied the king the honor of having killed 
Cyrus (c’s 11 and 14); the statement that many revolted 
from the king to Cyrus, but from Cyrus to the king no 
ne (exc. 58); that as far as we can make out of his ac- 
count of the battle of Cunaxa he put everything in a much 
less favorable light for the king, than the facts seem to 
have warranted; and the murders which he relates that 


ΠῚ 


Parysatis committed against all whe had anything to do 
with the death of Cyrus. For these must be viewed not 
simply as a recital of the cruelties of Parysatis; but, as the 
death of Stateira is- attributed by Ctesias to revenge for 
the death of Clearchus, so these punishments must be 
looked upon as showing especially how fearfully Parysatis 
avenged the death of her son. At any rate we would as 
soon expect a favorable characterization of Artaxerxes from 
the authority for c’s 24 and 25, as from any other source. 

The story of the oath of Artaxerxes by the god 
Mithra Haug (p. 92) thinks an indication of an author well 
versed in Persian affairs, and therefore he assumes this to 
be Ctesias, and with him agrees Schottin (Observ. de Plut. 
vita Artax. p. 3). In fact this is the main reason why they 
assign the whole characterization of the king to Ctesias. 
But Xenophon in Cyrop. VII, 5, 3 makes the elder Cyrus 
‘nvoke Mithra, as in Oecon. 4, 24 he makes the younger 
Cyrus, before the accession of Artaxerxes to the throne, 
invoke the same deity; and the same author in Anab. V, 
4, 24 and 35 mentions the rearing of horses for the king, 
to be sacrificed to this deity. Rawlinson (Anc. Mon. Lond. 
ΠΠ’, 348) says: “The worship of Mithra, or the sun, 
does not appear in the inscriptions until the reign of 
Artaxerxes Mnemon, the victor of Cunaxa. It is howe- 
ver impossible to doubt that it was a portion of the Per- 
sian religion at least as early as the date of Herodotus”. 
And in a note he adds: “None of the early kings 
mention Mithra, yet his emblem appears on all the known 
royal tombs, except that of Cyrus. Note also the occur- 
rence of the name Mithridates ‘given to, or by Mithra’ in 
the reign of Cyrus (Ezra I, 8)” But that the image of this 
god was first set up by Artaxerxes Mnemon, and that he 
was the first who invoked Mithra to be his protector, seems 
clear from the inscription (Spiegel, Keilinschriften p. 65): “By 
the grace of Auramazda have | set up in this temple Ana- 
hita and Mithra. May Auramazda, Anahita and Mithra 
protect me!” Berosus Chaldaeus (Hist. Graec. Min. ἢ, 509) 


12 


that Artaxerxes had set up images of Anahita, 
in all the chief cities of his kingdom, among 
at Ecbatana; and a temple of Anaitis at Ecbatana 
luded to by Plutarch in c. 27. Plutarch’s authority 
statement about Anaitis in c. 27 might very well 
supposed to be acquainted also with the worship 
See also the allusion to the worship of the sun 
29; from which it is clear that there is no good 
n for assigning the story of the oath by Mithra to 
uthor, rather than another. In fact Plutarch’s author- 
29 must have had the very knowledge which 

vould allow only to Ctesias.’ 
>. The strongest evidence of the use of Dinon in 
chapter is the allusion to Tiribazus. This person 15 
mentioned in the fragments of Ctesias, but he plays a 
role in this life, and we have reason to believe did 
o in Dinon’s Persika (cf. C. Nepos, Conon 5, 4). He ts 
entioned in this biography in c’s 5, 7, 10, 24, 27, 25, 29. 


[Ὁ he plays an important part which is not mentioned 


| 
jas. The encouragement offered by Tiribazus to the 


when he puts him upon his horse, after he had been 

wn down by Cyrus: “O king remember this day, for 
worthy not to be forgotten,” is so exactly in the 

vle of his exhortation to risk a battle, that we unhesita- 
ingly assign both to the same source. In c. 5 he is cha- 
cterized as ὑπόχουφος χαὶ παρᾶφ ρος, in c. 24 as 
διὰ χουφύτητα, again in c. 27 as ἀνώμαλος χαὶ 

In c. 7 Plutarch says concerning him: [ypt- 

φασι, πρώτου τολμήσαντος ἱπεῖν, ὡς οὐ δεῖ φυ- 

λ., in c. 24 Τηρίβαζος ἀνὴρ πολλάχις μὲν ἐν 

ανδραγαϑίαν τάξει γενόμενος, both which agree 
exactly with the part Dinon makes him play in c. 10. This 


onstant agreement is explained only on the supposition 


I, 23 tells this same story much fuller, but gives 
» source. The story with which c. § opens is given also 


ian, Hist. Var. I, 32. 


13 


that Plutarch followed one general authority for the facts 
connected with Tiribazus, and is further an evidence of a 
general use of Dinon in different parts of this life. Besides 
we may notice here the names Os/anes and Oxathres, the 
statement that the king used to call his brothers to the 
same table with himself being significant from the fact, that 
Ostanes is mentioned again in the same connection in c, 22, 
where Dinon is. cited, and was almost certainly the source. 

C 6. Rawlinson (Anc. Mon. Ill, 486, n. 10) doubts if 
Plutarch had any authority for the statement that Cyrus 
had a party at court, but that can very well be thought, 
if we compare with the intrigues mentioned at the opening 
of c. 26 among the noble and powerful vassals. Besides 
Anab. I, I, 5 seems to be a confirmation of this. 

The number of the Greek troops of Cyrus (Anab. I, 
7, 10) and the statement that Tissaphernes went up to 
inform the king (Anab. I, 2, 4) would seem to be certainly 
taken from Xenophon’); yet the statement that the skytale 
was sent to Clearchus, which is directly opposed to Xeno- 
phon’s statement (Anab. I, 1, 9), that Clearchus was a Lace- 
daemonian fugitive, makes it very doubtful whether Xenophon 
was before Plutarch here. This allusion to the skytale gives 
rise to a very interesting question. The opinion has been 
advanced that the disobedience of Clearchus to the Spartan 
authorities was only a made-out affair between Cyrus and 
Sparta, that the suspicions of the Persian court might not 
be aroused against Sparta. (Cf. Koch, Zug der Zehntausend, 
§ 9.) This rhymes exactly with Ephorus (in Diod. XIV, τὶ 
who states that Alcibiades revealed to Pharnabazus, that 


, Opuse Philol. 1, 447, thinks that the number of the Greek 
troops given by Plutarch at a “little less than 13 000” was taken from 
Dinon, concluding from Xenophon’s disagreement with himself, that the 
12 900 given in Anab. 1, 7, 10, must be corrupt, and that 14,900 should 
be read. But the close agreements between the text as we now have it and 
the numbers given by Plutarch and Diodorus is a strong argument in favor 
of the present reading; though it is an interesting, but probably insolvable 
problem, how to account for Xenophon’s disagreement with himself. 


εὖ 


vrus : 


14 


eopath ho 24 ; : 
with the Lacedaemonians, was going to make war 


the king, and with Diodorus XIV, 21, 2 (Ephorus again 


» doubt 


bt) who says the mercenary troops sent to Cyrus 


Sparta were feigned to be sent by private persons, but 


reality were sent by the government, which was trying 


ει 


nid 
ua 


Ῥ all things in the dark until it could be seen what 


be the result of the expedition of Cyrus. See also 


tinus V, 11, who agrees perfectly with Diodorus. If this 


Or 


ΠῚ] 


rhe 


obable, then, there is no reason to doubt that the 
was really sent to Clearchus. But even if Clearchus 


é 


communicated this fact to Ctesias during his imprison- 


the latter would hardly have divulged it in his his- 


through fear of the Spartans, with whom he seems to 


᾿ 


ορ 
‘ 


A 


iT 


taken up his residence after his return to Greece. 

ire the treatment of the returned Ten Thousand by 
which continued until hostilities again broke out 

n Sparta and Persia. 

s Dinon however wrote about the same time with 

us, the whole story had probably already come to 
[he reference to Dinon and Ctesias at the close of 


chapter shows that both were before Plutarch, and if 


tha 


ΕἾ 


(,. 


tie 


improbable that Ctesias would make such a statement 
+ 


t of the skytale, we turn naturally to Dinon. 
7. That Xenophon was the source either directly 


1; —tIer foie 4 - 
lirectly for the number of combatants in the royal army, 


disorderly manner in which the army of Cyrus was 


narching, the consternation caused by the sudden announce- 


the totally different dimensions of the ditch given by 


that the king was near at hand, the quiet and or- 
manner in which his troops came forward, is per- 


clear from a comparison with Xen. Anab. I, 7, 10 sqq.; 


Plutarch make it extremely doubtful, whether he consulted 


‘enophon directly or not (cf. Schottin p. 9). It is hard to 


. ‘ ‘ 


ence 


tle 
Lit 


ive a reason why Plutarch, who expresses such con- 


, 


in Xenophon with regard to his narrative of the 
should not adopt his dimensions for the ditch, a 
which he certainly had the best opportunity to know. 


[8 


Ritschl (Opusc. Philol. I, 447) supposes the goo000 was 
taken directly from Dinon, and thinks he may have had 
Xenophon as source. E. Curtius [Gr. Gesch. Ill, 4, 135 
(n. 79)| considers Dinon to be the source here, and Thirl- 
wall (Hist. of Greece IV, 303 n.) accepts Xenophon as 
Dinon’s authority. The allusion to Tiribazus accords with 
this view, and a comparison of his advice to the king on 
this occasion with the invective of Artagerses in c. 9 points 
to the same authority. Very similar is the exhortation of 
Tiribazus to the king in c. 10. 


C 9. That Dinon, as well as Ctesias, related the fall 
of Artagerses, is clear from the fact that Plutarch says: 
“That Artagerses then was killed by Cyrus, about all agree”; 
and at the beginning of the following chapter: “Dinon says, 
then, that when Artagerses had fallen etc.” I must think, 
then, that the facts in c. 7 came through Dinon as inter- 
mediate source. It is strange that he should not have a- 
dopted the dimensions of the ditch as siven by Xenophon, 
but it is easier to think of him as differing from Xenophon 
in this case, than of Plutarch as doing the same. 


~ 


C. 10. The short account of the battle taken from 
Dinon is doubtless to be explained on the supposition, that 
he agreed in most respects with Xenophon. It will be 
noticed that there is no contradiction between the two; in 
the main facts they agree, namely that Cyrus died on the 
field and in the presence of the king. It is further notice- 
able that Dinon differs from Xenophon just where the 
latter has recourse to Ctesias. Plutarch states in chapter 8 
the principle which guides him in the description of the 
battle, namely, that “no sensible man would attempt to 
relate anything except whatever worthy of mention Xeno- 
phon had omitted”, and Dinon’s close agreement with 
Xenophon is the only satisfactory explanation for the 
shortness of his account. So is best explained the fact that 
in c. 18 with regard to the deceiving and capture of the 


D> 


Greek generals by Tissaphernes, their death, etc., the ac- 


+ 


11) 


at 
iis 


10 


esias alone is given; for Dinon followed here 
lity the authority of Xenophon. 
Dinon’s part in this chapter has already been 
We pass now to c. 19, becauss the evidence 
of Ctesias as source for Plutarch in ς᾽ 1d, 

excepted. This evidence it will be best to 
der the head of Ctesias. 

In this chapter Dinon is mentioned three. times 
It is probable that he 


in most other respects the same 


lightly from Ctesias. 
howevel CAV 
epting of course the time to which allusion 1s 
light particulars in which Dinon differs from 
us again in all probability with some 


of his faultfinding with regard to Ct ias. He 


had as authority some one who was more or 


connected with the Persian court and this 
Polycritus of Mendae. The reason assigned 
as determining Parysatis to the horrible 
in accordance with Ctesias, who, as we 
stated that Parysatis thus took revenge 
Clearchus. On the other hand Ctesias, 
Dinon. must be the source for the statement, 
itis and Stateira after their former difference 
to associate with each other and to take 
together; for according to Dinon (c. 6) Sta- 
ith was the immediate result of this first dif- 
[hat Dinon related the punishments of the 


ind especially of Gigis, must be inferred from the 


ich he makes her and Melantas play in the affair 
ira’s death, and that he told the mutual anger of 


ind his mother follows directly from c. 23: “For 


did not continue long in his wrath, but became 


ciled to her and sent for her, etc.” ‘The authority 


tatement of the reconciliation must be one who 


told of the estrangement, and as c. 23 opens with the 


| 
+i 
Lil 


[issaphernes which took place full 3 years after 


- 


[7 


Ctesias had finished his history, it is altogether improbable 
that he can be the source for the statement of the recon- 
ciliation of Artaxerxes and Parysatis. So nothing is left 
but to accept Dinon as the source. 

ty ah 


ter has been discussed above. 


The charge made against Ctesias in this chap- 
Haug (p. 96) thinks that 
the notice of the peace of Antalcidas was taken from 
Ephorus, but without ground. Plutarch followed Ephorus 
readily in other places, but there is no evidence of his 
being used at all in this life. He does not once refer to 
him, not even in c. 13, where the number of troops of the 
royal army as given by Ctesias is opposed to that of Xe- 
nophon and Dinon, although Ephorus agreed with, and most 
probably took from, Ctesias the number 400000 (Diodorus 
XIV, 22); again Plutarch makes no reference to the story 
told by Ephorus in Diodorus XIV, 11 and 22, 1, that the 
king had already been informed by Pharnabazus, before 
Tissaphernes went up, of the coming of Cyrus; nor does 
he allude to the story told in Diodorus XIV, 21, 2 of the 
double play of the Spartans; of which things I have no 
doubt Plutarch would have taken notice, if Ephorus had 
been before him. Ephorus no doubt related the circum- 
tances of this peace and was probably the authority of 
Diodorus in XIV, 110, but it seems from the close con- 
nection with the opening of the next chapter, where Dinon 
‘is named, that the latter must have related the same. 

We know positively, however, that Xenophon related 
all the details of this peace and to him directly, or indi- 
rectly, Plutarch was probably indebted here, as we shall 
see later. 

C. 22. In the opening of this chapter Dinon is named, 
the sentence is connected in the closest manner with the 
preceding chapter, and besides, if Dinon said that Artaxer- 
xes, while hating the Spartans above all men, was exceed- 
ingly fond of Antalcidas, he must of course have related the 
cause of this fondness, that is the peace brought about by 


the influence of Antalcidas. Haug (p. 98) thinks from the 
2 


Ι ὃ 


ἴῃ which this reference to Dinon occurs, that 


’ 


4 


rne source for the reception of Antalcidas and 


noted Greeks at the Persian court. Miiller (Hist. Gr. 


Dinon) for the same reason considers Dinon the 


the whole account of Antalcidas. But Schottin 
Plut. vita. Artax. p. 8), on the streneth of the 


Phantas, found 


in Athen. 484, assigns th 


ry of the reception of these Greeks at the court 


rxes to him. 


can best arrive at a conclusion by comparing the 


it. and of Phanias in full. 


ἃ 4 e 7 τι. 
DC αλλοὺῦὺς ὡπᾶρ- 
᾿ 
ἡδελυττομενος ὁ Ap- 
᾿ ᾿ 
χαὶ νουϊςων, ὡς φῆσι 


AViNwWTwy ATALVTWY 


‘ : 
(INSESTATOVCG StVAaL, TOV Αν- 
“5, γι“ “Δ 
TENN | LTT SEV 
AVASAVTS. Kat TOTES 
) ξγὰ τῶν ανϑινων στε- 
; 9 , 


DAVY χαὶ PAVEAc Sto WOUPOV τὸ 
᾽ ’ ᾿ 1 


Ἄ . ἢ ΘΝ 
ἡ) ΔΛΌτελεστατον LTo OSltTVOV 


wie 


πες τῷ AvtaAntoa’® χαὶ Tav- 


Πα) σαν τῊν φιλο 3)" 


ther with regard to Ti- 


ra liuayoou Of τῷ 
J ἢ ᾿ ͵ ᾿ 


Ὑ». B; > , ‘ - ae 
NVreay OLE TAOQVPLOOS rou 
; ; ‘ 

, 5 ; ’ 
JAZUUATEWS FS SULUAVTL γρᾶμ- 
᾿ Ἵ ᾿ 
ὁ ὡ ἡ 
ἡσὺ ἰς μυ- 
Ἂ ᾿ we 
OAOELKOVS FCOWXE 
ζ΄ 7 ~ al 
ΞΟ OBEOUSVH οι 
᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 


> a ~ 


LOVSVELAY OY OOF, AOVTA pous 
7 
guchyeavat παρηχολουϑοὺν . 
᾽ ᾿ 
| 


r Ἵ ι 
ἈΛινην χα! στρώματα χαι 


Ἔ νά. ζω δὰ Cs 
“τοὐννυντας STSEUUSV, ὡς 
: ᾿ 


Ἢ 


Athenacus 

-- “ ' 7 . 

Πρῶτοι δὲ Πέρσαι, ὡς φησιν 
᾿ ‘ i 

ε ᾿ i~ ᾿ ‘ . 
Hoaxdstongs, χαὶ τοὺς Asyous- 

YOU στοώτας ἐφεύρον, ἵνα χο- 

» ᾿ Ἵ Ἢ 

σμον ἔχῃ ἡ στρῶσιςχαϊ SVAPELAY. 
ἢ .u i ᾿ i 

ryt ; ν᾽ ~ ᾿ / x 

[ὃν οὖν Κρῆτα [iuayoouy 7, 

‘ : ἐ 


4 “- ν ἢ - 
τὸν ἐχ Loptevos, ὥς φησι (Da- 


e ; 


viag ὃ περιπατηϊχος, Ἵ ντιμον, 
ὡς “Hho Θημιστοχλέους ἀνέβη 
ὡς βασιλέα, τιμῶν ᾿Αρταξέρξης, 
σχηνὴν τε ἔδωχεν αὐτῷ διαφέ- 


noveay τὸ χάλλος χαὶ τὸ με- 
Η 


ἈΛινῃν αργυροποοί, 
Ἢ ἢ « 
ι ; . 
χαὶ STOWUATA πολὺ- 
‘ ' 


4‘ ς " 
τὸν υὑποστρώσαντα, 
Ἢ 
> 5 ; Ἢ a 
χῶν οὐχ ἐπίστασῦαι TOUC 


λληνᾶς ὑποστρωννύειν. Kat 
συγγενιχον ἄριστον ExXA- 


ω « ξ ᾽ Ἢ ᾿ 

AE&ltto ὁ Κρὴς οὐτος, 
7 ‘al 

5 y ’ . 

Cn mnovov VMN CITC OTe 
A&a POL FWY YSSS ITSO 
΄ - ξ δὰ ὦ , 
πρότερον τῶν λληνων 

5443 ae. ae or 
veto, αλλ O00 USOTENOY, αὐτΊ͵ 
‘ - κ , “ae 
“20 Ἢ Tuy Tors SVESL c- 
oe j ‘wo 


; γεν , ᾿ 5 
φυλάττετο. Τιμαγορα μὲν γάρ 
͵ Ἵ ' 


; 


~ » ( , ~ =< . = 
τῳ Αϑηναίῳ, τῷ προσχυνήσαντι 


ΤΌΝ ἃ 22. 


> ( , . ae e 
οὐ μεμαϑηχότων ἔλληνων ἡπο- 
4 


STOWVVUOVAL, AAt Goo0EsEts τοὺς KO- 


J 
ἥν > ‘ , ( Ἂ , 
WLLOVTAS αὐτὸν μέχρι ϑαλαάσσης 
᾿ ῳν ὃ 

᾿ Ἀ μος. yy. = / ~ 1 
μαλαχῶς ἔχοντα. [[αρόντι ὃὲ 

- : 

a - 5 ᾿ ᾿ / 

ὥξιπνον ENEUTETO AMUTOOTATOV, 

' ᾿ 
one ὦ . . > 93. ; <a 
ὠστε XAL TOV AGEADOY του Ρα- 
, 


a A 
ru liusyoon, 
ἢ 


. , > / 

σιλέως Ὀστάνην 
δι ιν aie on ἕως » πον 
ΞΟ νὴ σὴ CAUTNC τῆς 

i i i i ! 

> ‘ > = 

τρᾶπ Ὡς" Ov γάρ ETL υἱχροις᾿ 

i ἢ ‘ z 

oy Φ , 
OUTWM σοὶ XEXO SILEVY, TAOAKEL- 
ϊ 


>] ~> 5) > 


5 ry’ ~ ~ \ 
ται. Τοῦτο ὃ Ἣν ὀνειδισμος 
‘ 


~N , er yn , 
προδοσίαν μᾶλλον Ἢ yapt- 
ξ 7 γεν ΒΩ ‘i ‘ 
ὑπόμνησις. Τιμαγόρου μὲν 

᾿ ‘ 


a ~ ~ , > ( 
οὖν διὰ τὴν δωηοδοχίαν Αϑη- 
j ἱ i 


~ ( ΄ Ἵ 
VALOL σχνατων χατεγνωσαν. 


Athenaecus 484. 


΄ “ἢ ᾿ σε ; 
βασιλέα χαὶ μάλιστα τιμηϑέντι, 


~ ς 


-- - >. ᾿ς » ὧν» Ὁ» 
CONTO Quy ὑπὴρςξ τῶν OS παρα- 


εὐ μ 1a , . 
τι ϑεμένων βασιλει τουτῷ τινα 
απὸ τῆς τραπέζης ἀπέστελλεν. 


4 


’ . ix a1 ~ , 
Ανταλχίδα ὃξ τῷ Λαάχωνι τὸν 
Π 
Υ 


Re ἢ a oy 
αὐτου φᾶνον εἰς μῦρον pa- 


~ «? γὙἼ1.5 ; 
τῷ ὃ ~Evttum 
4 Ἢ 
δε | s « \ - ; ι ι 
τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ἐποίει, χαὶ ἐπὶ 
\ A v " Ps 
TO συγγενιχὸν ἄριστον ἐχάλει, 
? c , + ~ Ww 
ῳ οἱ Πέρσαι χαλεπῶς ἔφε- 


‘ 


~ 


ὡς τῆς TE τιμ, = μξευο- 
, 


δ. ἧς 
Φᾧ tt 5 Ἣν 
. , vr 
tv ESOWEVTS. Kreu- 
‘ “ἢ » | ~ > / 
XAt ΧΛΙνὴν αὐτῷ apyupo- 
\ ι ‘ 
στρωμνὴν χαὶι SAVE 
? 4 δ᾽ Ἢ , εἰν Ὁ 
οὐρανοροφον ἄνϑινην χαὶ ὕρονον 
) ~ 1 5 " , 
ἀρρύρουν χαι cTLY PUSOV SALG- 
fs 


διον χαὶ φιάλας λιϑοχολλήτους 
χρυσᾶς χαὶ ἀργυρᾶς δὲ μεγάλας 
ἑχατὸν χαὶ χρατῆρας ἀργυροῦς 
χαὶ παιδίσχας ExaTOV χαὶ παῖ- 
ὃας ἑχατό , χρυσοὺς τε ἔξαχι- 
“χιλίους χωρὶς τῶν εἰς τὰ 
τήδεια way ἡμέραν διδομένων. 
To this may be added 
Athen. 251°, for from the 
allusion to the prostration 
before the king in both pas- 
sages we cannot be wrong 
in referring both to the same 
source: xat Τιμαγόραν ὃ ἀπέχ- 
cr nr _¢ ς f 
ιναν, OTL πρεσβεύων ὡς ατι- 


ee / > ~ 
AS% πρ OSEXVVYSEVAY τῷ. 


We have in this extract of Athenaeus a combination 
of two different versions of the same story; for not only 


2* 


21 


~ 


IO 


Pelop. 30 the same account of Timagoras, Antalcidas and 


probably) call the recipient of the king’ 


the Cretan, while Phanias names him 


Pelopidas, as in this chapter, the presents of Timagoras 


; , . being the same as here'); which strengthens » evidence 
rtyn. but there is a double enumeration Οἱ © ; + RE ere ae vhich strengthens the evidence 
ε ; ' against the assumption that Plutarch and Athenaeus drew 
vhich can be explained in no other way. | h ΗΝ inst Lait ind Athenaeus ἄγεν 
os their information from the same source, since in tw iffer- 
ppose that the first and shorter enumeration was ape urce, since in two differ 
or - - ent narrations composed at different periods - forme 
ides, the second and fuller from Phania 2 apd τς er c . ; riods the former 
bf agrees with himself and differs so widely from Athenaeus 
third and older version: older, because to thi | | ᾿νε phennting!: ely fi m \thenaeus. 
, 1ere is sufficient similarity 1 » acc - Ἰαΐαγοῇ < 
the story the following passage from A ᾧ Ic ul ν᾿ n t ie iccounts of Plutarch and 
δὴ 5 i ᾿ νιν Sais ᾿ Athenaeus with regard to the gifts presented to Timagoras 
tainly to reter: “lor to limagoras the ‘ae τ ἱ ented t Tim = Ss 
ae ae Ἢ ἫΝ τ tr ἊΝ or Entimus, to make us sure that both are versions of the 
trated himself before the king and wa ΟἹ PONE 
a | »» same story, but on the other hand so great divergences as 
thing did not happen, etc. : 7? Pa oe > t vers ς 5 
. δ: om to point certainly to different sources. 
his passage in no other light lan as % “- vem 
Ν ~ ἊΝ i ΡῈ [he best explanation then seems to me to be this: 
ion of the version given by Plutarch | | 
| . en i ς ὕω Δὸν Plutarch has the oldest version of the story and his source 
nt names by which the subject of the story 1s Gt | oe <i y nae 
a ‘ . or was Dinon, for this author was before him in this chapter 
Plutarch and in Athenaeus, the following differen , I 


ident in the story itself: 1) With P! 
Cheban who prostrates himself before 


and must in the very nature of the case have related these 
things; Phanias, who, according to Suidas, was a disciple of 


ions as the cause of the great favor Aristotle and flourished at the time of Alexander the Great, 
| Athenian a secret ltt sent thr was acquainted with this version and contradicted it, at 
of which oh dint te caste tn least as far as the subject of the story is concerned. 

in the otite δι μδνο thice ἢ Ὁ C. 23. We saw at c. 19 that only Dinon could be 
is ἀμ ΕΞ Plutarch and Athenaeu considered as authority for the statement here given of the 
cift-taking as the cause of the cond reconciliation petw een the king and his mother, and from 
Ἂ the A stuinitanae ΒΟ the connection he might well be supposed the authority 
because he prostrated himself befor for the death of Tissaphernes. The circumstances of the 
by a comparison of Artax. 22 with P death of Tissaphernes were well known, however, as may 
) be inferred from the fact that it is related by Xenophon 


Hell III, 4, 25), Polyaenus (Strateg. VII, 16), Diodorus 
XIV, 80, 6—8) (see also Plutarch Ages. 10); and these dif- 


repre ented Antalcidas as honored 


ibove all the Greeks who went up to hi 


authority of Athenaeus represented thi j 
ferent accounts agree so nearly that it would be impossible 


to decide whence Plutarch’s account came. Haug finds in 
the expression of Parysatis, that the king “should not regard 
the opinions and laws of the Greeks, since he himself had 


shown to Entimus. We have beside 


σ pidas to prevail in all hi 
to follow Xenophon (Hell. VIL. 1, 


th I 1) The only difference is that in Pelop. 30 the sum of money presented 
ire the tent with Leon, fils pm τς : i [ 

᾿ - Pelovid , [ 3 to Timagoras is not stated, while we find the pay given to the carriers, 
ounsels of Pelopidas, that for th ᾿ ak 
which is wanting in our chapter, 


nd condemned by his countrymen. 


ippointed by the deity as the law and judge of right 
rong for the Persians” an indication of the graecising 
The allusion to Heraclides is without doubt only 
in the general account, and will be discussed under 
here the marriage of Amestris is more fully related. 
mann (Gr. Gesch. II, 351 and 356) assumes that Ar- 
took part personally in two expeditions against 
dusians, no doubt inferring this from the totally dif- 
account which Diodorus (XV, 8 and 10—II) gives 
ribazus at the time of this war, from that given by 
here; but it seems to me without good reason. It 

in that Plutarch knew of only one such expedition. 


sive the principal 


lius Nepos (Datames 1) seems to g 


this war to Datames, not mentioning Tiribazus, and 
Diodorus represents Tiribazus as taking no part in that 


edition, we might guess the same source for both. Now 
d from Athen. 144 f., that Theopompus in the 3 
of his Histories told how 7khys the king of the Pa- 


«th 
5 


nians was brought as a captive to king Artaxerxes; 

is represented by Nepos (c. 2) as the second of 

reat exploits of Datames; hence we might infer that 

pompus was the source for Nepos with regard to this 

it and also for the Cadusian war. The different ac- 

of Plutarch with regard to Tiribazus points to a dif- 

ferent source. Partly from the way in which Plutarch 

characterizes Tiribazus here, which agrees so well with the 

inner in which he appears in c’s 5, 7, 10, 27, 28, 29, 

partly because this son of Tiribazus is introduced again 

30, where it is certain that Dinon was before Plutarch, 

think it more natural to refer this account to Dinon, than 
any other source. 


Miller (Hist. Gr. Frag. II, 98) considers the account of 


4 


\spasia to be taken from Heraclides, but, except the allu- 


ἢ made to him in c. 23, there is no evidence in favor of 


this supposition. In c. 27 where Plutarch tells (according 
. Heraclides) of the marriage of Amestris to the king, she 
said to have been the first of his daughters, whom he 


23 

married; afterwards he married Atossa also, as it is said. 
But in c. 23 the king’s infatuation for and marriage with 
Atossa is related as if the first thing of the kind that had 
happened. Heraclides’ story about his marrying Amestris is 
alluded to merely to be put off for another occasion. Then 
at the beginning of c. 27, in the very midst of the story 
about Aspasia and Darius, Plut. says of Artaxerxes: “AI- 
though he had Atossa, having made her his wife contrary 
to the law, etc.”; not the slightest allusion to Amestris, as 
there must have been if Heraclides had been the source 
here.*) Heeren (De Trogi Pomp. font. et auct., pars altera 
p. XIII — Frotscher’s Edition of Justinus) thinks that in 
the following account with regard to Artaxerxes and his 
sons Plutarch and Justinus have the same source and sup- 
poses this to be Theopompus, but a close comparison of 
Plut. and Just. shows quite a divergence. 


( 
Ὁ 


Plut. 26 and 30. Fuck Xx. °F, 


3 legitimate sons of Ar- Darius, Ariarates and 
taxerxes: Darius, Ariaspes | Ochus. 
and Ochus. 

Plut. 26 

Artaxerxes becoming old Artaxerxes appointed Cy- 
perceived that his sons were | rus King per indulgentiam, 
intriguing for the throne, and considering that nothing was 
in order to take away all hope taken from himself which was 
from the younger, Ochus, and | given to his son, and that 
to prevent such a calamity as | his own pleasure would be 
had befallen himself in the more real, if he saw during 
war with Cyrus, appointed his own lifetime the insignia 
Darius, who had now reached of majesty upon his son. 


1) Athenaecus (5764) states that Xenophanes said that Aspasia was 
called Milto, and Aelian, who gives the same story as Plutarch, only much 
fuller, says also that she was called Milto, but this is hardly ground 


enough to assume Xenophanes to be Plutarch’s source. 


as his suc- 


.law of the Per- 

he one appointed 
throne make a request, 
t he who appointed 
iid, if possible, grant 


asked. 


rave Aspasia 


a LYATNS τοῦ 


erxes changed his 


made Aspasia a 


Artemis at Ec- 


ision to the illegiti- 
brothers of Darius as 
erned in the conspiracy, 
son of Tiribazus 15 
in c. 30 as the 

r of Arsames. 
is the leading 


f the conspiracy. 


rids himself of Art- 
; and then Arsames, and 
nsequence of these troub- 


\rtaxerxes dies of rief 


os 
o 


} , 
lespondency. 


Darius was appointed king 


“contrary to the law of th 


Persians with whom the king 


'is not changed except by 


death.” 


Fus ae 


The king gave uj 


pro indulgentia., 


A priestess of the sun 


50 of the brothers of Da- 
rius join the conspiracy and 
all of his companions, with 
their wives and children, ar: 
put to death. 


Not mentioned in_ Justi- 


nus. 


After the death of Darius, 
Artaxerxes died of disease 
brought on by grief; no 
allusion being made to the 
plots of Ochus against Ari- 
aspes and Arsames, though 
his cruelty against all the 
surviving members of the 
royal family after the death 
of Artaxerxes is told. 


The case then stands about as follows: the differences 
in the two accounts are too great to allow of their being 
referred to the same source; this story, as Plutarch gives 
it, is part of a connected account extending from c. 26 to 
the end of the life and bearing every mark of a single 
source, and Plutarch is found in c. 30 (cf. frag. 29 Dinon 
to be following Dinon, though he does not name him; 
Dinon was constantly before Plut. in the composition of 


the life, being mentioned in c’s 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, 19, 22 and 


quoted from in c. 30, while Theopompus is not once men- 


tioned in the biography. 

A close comparison of passages in different chapters 
from c. 23 to the close will make it quite probable that 
Plutarch followed one general source in them all. Compare, 
for instance, c. 23 the allusion to the marriage of Atossa 
with the king contrary to the laws and opinions of the 
Greeks, with c. 27, the statement that Artaxerxes had made 
Atossa his wife contrary to the law; also the reference 

26. 28 and 30 to the same relation of Atossa; 
+. 26: the law with regard to whatever request the 
heir appointed might make and c. 28 allusion again made 
to this law 26) mention of the upright kitaris, and ref- 
erence to the same in c. 28 — (26) Darius stated to have 
been appointed to the throne, with which compare Tirt- 
bazus’ reference to the same in c. 28 — (26) intrigues of 
Ochus with Atossa and allusions to the same in c’s 28 and 
30. The general course of the story seems to be inter- 
rupted only three times: I* in c. 23 ἔνιοι μέντοι λέγουσιν; 
2.4 in c. 27 where the story of Heraclides with regard to the 
king’s marrying Amestris is introduced; 3" in c.29, ἔνιοι δέ 
φασι. The statement of Heraclides alluded to in c. 23 1s 
given undoubtedly in c. 27, where Plutarch speaks of the 
marriage of the daughters of the king. We may well be- 
lieve from the connection that Heraclides told of the wrath 
of Tiribazus against the king and perhaps his counsel to 
Darius, but the arguments by which he rouses Darius to 
a conspiracy, the allusions to the upright Ataris, to the 


’ 
rr 
: 


L 


. rT 
n to the 
the Pe 


tT) 


δὲ 


hat Plut 


V¢ 
ΠΟ 


20 


Ychus in the harem of his father, to the suc- 


* crown, to the king’s breaking an inviolab 

‘rsians for the sake of a Greek prostitute, all 
and the beginning of c. 27, where it is almost 
arch did not have Heraclides as source, since 


account of the relation of Amestris to 


30. Miller (Graec. Hist. Frag. f. 29 Dinon) gives 


Will 
- 


idot 


te 


’ 


"AKS 


fragment taken from Lucian. Macrob. c. 15, 


λρταξέρξης ὃ Mvyuey ἐπιχληδείς, ἐφ ον Kopoc 


‘ 


JAStASUMY EV [Πέρσαις ετξΞλξυτὴσξ 


+ ΄- , ‘ ~ ἃ ; . 
ντα ἐτῶν γενόμενος, ὡς Ge Δείνων totopet, 


» the age and length of reign of Artaxerxes 


very strongly for him as main authority for 


part of this biography, when we see that it 15 a 


) ACC! 


unt, evidently from one leading source, when 


‘nd the death of Artaxerxes is represented as the 


the ; 
inectio 
lance wW 
» have 
nm 
ral use 
dozen « 
resul 


him tl 


iccumulated evils just described, and just in 
n the age of Artaxerxes is given in exact 
ith Dinon. The fact that Plutarch is found 
used Dinon without naming him, is with his 
ethod of using his sources, better evidence of 
of him in the latter part of this life, than 
ypen citations would be. 
t to which I come then is, that Plutarch had 
roughout the life one main authority, who 


shed the groundwork for the whole"); though he mad 
isc of Ct 


some 
eS not 


to maint: 


esias, especially in c’s 11—19, of Xenophon, 
extent also of Heraclides, and others whom 
name. At first thought it may seem rather 
iin that Dinon was the leading authority for 


first nine chapters, since he had no personal knowledge 
- things there told, while Ctesias, as physician of th 


, 


-eren, 


de fontibus Plutarchi, p. 95. 


27 
royal family, had the very best opportunities to know; but 
Plutarch seems either to have had a very poor opinion of 
the integrity of Ctesias, or to have allowed the abuse which 
Dinon seems to have lost no opportunity to heap upon 
Ctesias, to influence his opinion.’ 

From the manner in which Dinon is cited in the first 
part of the life we have reason to suspect that he was the 
main source for the latter part, although no allusion is made 
to him; but when pursuing the traces of a connected ac- 
count, from one general source, we trace a single impor- 
tant event with perfect certainty to him, the evidence 
amounts almost to proof. 


Ctesias of Cnidus. 


J.C. F. BazHR: Ctesiae Cnidii Operum Reliquiae, Frankfurt 1824. 
Rettic, Ctesiae Cnidii vita, Hannover 1827. — C. 
MULLER, Ctesiae Fragmenta, —- Anhang zu Herodotus, 

Paris 1844 (Didot). 

Every other who has treated the subject, so far as | 
know, except Grote and Rettig, agrees with the result to 
which Baehr comes, following exc. 64 of Ctesias, name- 
ly, that Ctesias returned to his native land in 399 or 


1) From the efforts of Parysatis to have Cyrus appointed to the throne 
instead of Artaxerxes, as related in c. 2, the rival aspirations of Darius and 
Ochus as told in the beginning of c. 26, and the statement in c. 30 that 
“Ariaspes, not because he was older than Ochus, but because he was mild 
and simple and philanthropic, was desired as king by the Persians,” taken 
into consideration with the fact that Atossa persuaded the-elder Darius to 
appoint her son Xerxes to the throne to the exclusion of the elder Arto- 
bazanes, who was born before Darius became king (Herod VII, 3), we 
might suppose that the succession to the throne in Persia was not absolute- 
ly fixed by law, though undoubtedly it was the custom that the eldest 


son receive the kingdom. 


» 


2 ὃ 


Τὴ ͵ Ο ‘ . ὼ oO yf the Ω εἶ ; ᾿ -. F . . . 

p, 16) on the strength of the word I suspect that Ctesias, who is named in exc. 60 as 
sepulchre of Clearchus within physician of Parysatis and who certainly stood in a confi- 
covered with a growth of dential relation to her, as we may infer from the allusion 


return not earlier than 394 b. in exc. 49 and the events related with regard to Clearchus’ 


i. οἷς 4 » ΄ onl . . ° - - - . . 

TECCE, ΕΝ, δε Ὁ Ἢ -teoes imprisonment, after the death οἱ Stateira, when his royal 
wit oni cr1uT ina 7c “οὐ : } ΨΩ - - . Ps . - . - 
without giving his reasons. But a comparison patroness fell under the displeasure of the king, felt himself 


ind fjA ‘ ‘ . . é 4 f lL, 4 . - - P . ~ 
slit } with Diodorus XIV : 40, U SLOWS IS insecure and TOOK the rst opportunity to return to Greece. 


vrono . ,. Baten toat i τὰν , , ς ; 
wrong. In exc. 63 Ctesias states that he was The charge that he added to Conon’s letter a request, that 


| +4 ,΄ oO ( Ὁ» - . ᾿ , +1 ᾿ . .ρ : ᾿ . . 
etter to Conon (the appointment, no doubt, he should be sent to him, if true, would seem to indicate 


prefect of the fleet under Pharnabazus, for something of the kind (c. 21). Besides if we believe Plu- 
ifter is told how Conon was made navarch by tarch’s statement (c. 13), that he was a partisan of Sparta, 
then he relates his own return to his native how else are we to explain his conduct with regard to the 
then his journey to Sparta. According to Dio- appointment of Conon, than by supposing that he acted 
39, 1 the appointment of Conon was made in against the Lacedaemonian interests in order to get away} 


Ctesias had, moreover, as we see from exc. from the Persian court? That he really did not desert his 


ed to Greece before he closed his history, and Spartan principles, may be gathered from the fact that he 
to Diodorus XIV, 46, 6 this closed with the year seems to have taken up his residence at Sparta after his 
therefore cither heard the remainder of the silt return to Gr 
palm trees over Clearchus’ burial-place after According to Diodorus II, 32 Ctesias claimed, that for 
; ἰὴ paste - what is more probable, this, as the facts οἱ Persian history of the previous time he had 
ee ἜΡΙΝΝΝΣ of the story, is an invention of his. consulted the διφϑέραι ῃασιλικαί; of the remaining facts, 
, a the 8 years does seem to prove, if τ according to ee he was either an eye-witness, or heard 
nything, is that the history was not published until directly from eye-witnesses. For what relates to the expe- 
ΠΥ 393 B.C. It would be more in accordance, dition of Cyrus and the capture of the five generals of the 
bats wus rest of this wonderful story if we should Gre 2ks, Clearchus was undoubtedly his authority. The 
that this passage is corrupt, that originally ὀχτὼ eviuence is about as follows: 1) From Ctesias’ account ol 
read and this was changed by some transcriber his intercourse with Clearchus, as related in c. 18 and exc. 
ὦ ἐτῶν, as being more probable.’ <8 and 60, we see that he had just such an opportunity 


of getting an account of these events as a historian collect- 


» question whether Ctesias was a captive, as stated ing materials for a history would wish. 2 Note the prom- 
ollowing him, Tzetzes, Chil. I, 1, 82, or not 


, ie inent place given in exc. 58 to the difficulty between 

iller (1 ragm. of ¢ tesias). It seems ) Τὴ Ὶ | 1 y, “ol ς ῃ i Ι 2 : 
is τὶ ἌΝ sarchus al not whic s fully explained whe! 
is right in rejecting the statement of Diodo Clearchus and Menon, which 1s y I Ju: 

: , compared with exc. 60 the statement that Tissa- 

no otner prool, the fact that the history brea ' ak Γ MI | f 
ἢ : ᾿ ες ὌΝ nac mere ‘ ade ; 1e TK [9] ivienon Ν means ὁ 

vould make it almost certain that Ctesias left Persia αἱ phernes laving made a frien ; y 


ittle more than a chronicle of court affairs, and no reason him o¢ t into his power Clearchus and the four other 


; 


for closing it abruptly just in the midst of an interesting senerals, since the troops deceived by Menon forced 


him to have remained longer at the court of Persia. 


30 21 

rchus against his will, to go to a conference with ἀπὸ Κύρου τοῦ παλαιοῦ τοὔνομα ἔσχεν, ἐχείνῳ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
saphernes.") This is the self-justifying account of Clear- ἡλίου γενέσϑαι φασί. Κῦρον yao χαλεῖν Πέρσας τὸν ἥλιον; 
who traces his own ruin and that of the generals to also the name Ἄρσάχας, which form Plutarch prefers to that 

treachery, and this further to Menon’s jealousy on of Dinon: Odosy< (cf. Haug). 7 
of the preference shown by Cyrus to Clearchus. C 2. The source for the statement in this chapter 
can trace still further the self-justification of Clear- : that Artaxerxes by his supplications to his mother saved 
the words: ἀλλὰ zat ϑάνατος Κύρου, ἀπειϑοῦντος the life of his wife Stateira, when she was about to be put 
exc. 58). 4) Note the fact that the history of to death by order of his father Darius, was no doubt 
foes no further with the account of the Greeks, Ctesias, as a comparison with exc. 53—56 will show. The 
capture of the generals. This last 1 look upon, excerpts of Ctesias, however, seem to me to offer no satis- 
er, as a proof that Ctesias wrote his history in Per- factory evidence, that he was the authority for the scene 
for if he had composed it after his return to Greece, ; at Pasargadae and the plot of Cyrus against his brother 
he had opportunity to trace the full history of the cf. above c. 2 under Dinon). Haug’s assertion that the 
of the Ten Thousand, he would no doubt have done anecdotes in c’s 4 and 5 point to Ctesias, because he was 
specially as it is questionable whether at that time any so fond of relating such things, seems to me to amount to 
unt of the expedition had been published. ‘That 4 nothing. If we may judge by the fragments, Dinon was 
composed in Persia is besides, just what the following quite as fond of telling anecdotes; so were also Heraclides, 

ise means (Diod. Il, 32, 4): Οὗτος οὖν eno ἐχ τῶν βα- / Phanias and Theopompus. 

7 G.° That Ctesias, as well as Dinon, related the scene 


΄Ὗ 


κατά C 
of confusion at the palace, when Tissaphernes announced 


- “ > a , \ . ‘ 
wy διφϑερῶν, ἐν ate ot Πέρσαι τὰς παλαιᾶς πρό 


JL νῶμον SLYOV συντεταγμένας, πολυπραγμονῆσαι τὰ KAU ξἔχαστα 


συνταξάμενον τὴν ἱστορίαν εἰς to voc “EAA νας that Cyrus was marching on Babylon, may be inferred from 


vyxetv. Lhis is also Miiller’s view; but Rehdantz what he says about the enmity of Parysatis and Stateira; 


᾿ 


rod. to Anab. καὶ 17) considers the history to have been ! for instance exc. 62: “Stateira was exceedingly watchful, 
ten after his return to Greece. | that she might not suffer what did befall her”; c. 17: Pa- 
7. Had we the works of both Ctesias and Dinon, rysatis allowed Stateira to have as little to do with the 

no doubt that many of the facts stated by Plutarch king as possible, since she hated her most of all, and espe- 

1 up to the battle of Cunaxa, might be traced cially because she wished herself to have power”; again at 

ther source. In c. 1 Ctesias, as well as Dinon, was the end of c. 17: “But Stateira both in other things opposed 

her, and was especially angry, because she cruelly and 


Plutarch, as may be seen by comparing, for instance 
unlawfully killed, for the sake of Cyrus, eunuchs who were 


ISSage in «4 i νᾺ 40: τίϑεται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
Κῦρον, with Plutarch’s expression: ὁ μὲν ὧν Κῦοο-: faithful to the king”; again in c. 19: “After their former 
suspicion and hostility beginning again to associate together 

5. 28, from which it is clear that Clearchus suspected and to dine with each other”, which can refer only to c. 6 

prevailed both in the Persian army and at court, and can be from no other than Ctesias. All these passages 

cenus with Menon in the treachery against the generals, is prove clearly that Ctesias described the state of hostility 


lose agreement between Ctesias xc. 60) and the statement . . Ἱ . Ν . ~ γ “Ὁ 
pig seid pres: in which Parysatis and Stateira lived for several years be- 


An ib. IT, t 33), that *“Proxenus and Menon becau Ο thev had =e i 
| fore the final catastrophe. This hostility seems, according 


yf Clearchus were in great honor.” 


Ὕ 
JJ 


I cannot see, however, that the designation of Artasyras 
o have becun at the very commencement Οἱ 4} Bol > bet με | led wets 
m4 dee ος as “the king’s eye” betrays so accurate a Knowledge o 
Artaxerxes, when to gratify Stateira he put ee ae γι ee ma ae OF 
3 : Rey a Persian affairs that this of itself would point to Ctesias, for 
liastes, the slayer of Teritychmes (exc. 57). Nea gs 
7 the same designation is found in Herodotus I, 114. The 
to the date of the consummation of the plot, ney ὁ ᾿Ξ : 
ἐδ δὰ statement that the king was suffering in body from thirst 
<pressly preters esias. ‘ ΡΥ me 
kee | and his wound, can only be from Ctesias, inasmuch as 
Chere can be no doubt that the occasion of this ᾿ ᾿ 4" Ἂς : 
nalat Dinon says nothing about the king’s receiving a wound. 5a- 
the fact that Ctesias had assigned as the Ne ya μὴ " fk 
; ; "ὰ si tibarzanes is mentioned in exc. 57 and 63 as one of the 
th of Cyrus his disregard of the injui a aa 
' most trusted eunuchs of king Artaxerxes. Only Ctesias 


not expose himself to dang r δὰ . - = Ε : 
we , ST: alludes to the participation of the Kaunians in the battle 
davatos Kupov ἀπειϑουντο Seah ee ey 5- ; Bi ei 
i and the expression tov Kavvtwv ἐχείνων τῶν χαχοβίων 15 a 
too we may reach a certain ; ; ae ec ee ie a 
“= ν ‘ a direct reference to that of Ctesias in c. 11: Kavveot τινες 
source of Clearchus’ admonition * τὰ a > a oF ΠΣ 
; ction | ἄνϑρωποι χαχοβιοι. The rewarding of this Kaunian, as re- 
the latter, for from these we a 
nghie | lated in c. 14, where he is represented as a man unknown 
απειϑοῦντος KAsaoym means. ; plas 
‘Egil ἐφ ᾿ and poor, must be also from Ctesias. 
hat Ctesias was before Plutarch in this chaptet Seat ae But ' 
ip | C. 13. Ctesias told of the cutting off of Cyrus’ head 
allusion to the name of the horse of Cyrus, : 5 oe 
Resear C NPM and right hand, as we see from exc. 58, and only with his 
expression in ©. 1: “Gyrus when he fa ᾿ hates: 
2 . account agrees the scene around the body of Cyrus, where 
tacerses, etc. Ι a ἡ a 
: the king grasps the head of Cyrus by the thick and long 


1. Abridgement of Ctesias’ account of 


hair and shows it in the light of torches to the still flying 
Persians; for, as was said above, Cyrus in Dinon’s account 
p. 93 sqq.), Schottin ( ae bys : ν ; : 
, Siete Silia wae fell in the thick of the fight, in the presence of the king, 
Fraom. Ctesias) in consideri 1as ; 
, ar oe hn | | and his death must have been known to the army imme- 
sole authority in οἷς 12 and 14--1ὸ gS Ι ᾿ 
; . ; diately. In this chapter, moreover, Ctesias is named in 
he arcument of Haug (p. 93), that the account ᾿ . hee" ς ᾿ 
MEP: $e eas * | connection with the king’s army, the number of the fallen 
iv which Artasyras, “the king » Cl ; brings : ' oo : ι 
εὐ μα - . and the false statement with regard to the participation in 
intelligence of the death of Cyrus, as well a 7 
3 ) 5 dee an 4 , bate Ἢ the embassy sent to the Greeks.’ 
of a number of attendants to ascertain the Ἵ ἊΝ: 
are οὐλίδωὰ "ἢ ; Oe C. 14—18. The next five chapters are almost cer- 
ne report, is trom tesias, 18 quite Satistactory, : Ξ : - ᾿ 5 4 : 
᾿ ᾿ς , ᾿ : : oy εὖ tainly from Ctesias. Dinon evidently followed, in the main, 
that. according to Dinon, Cyrus fell in the thick kite ; , 
lin ἢ - the Ie 4] Xenophon’s account of the battle and hence had no occa- 
ficht and in the presence of the king, and theretore ‘ae 
) 4 , 1 ᾿ th; be: sion to allude to either the reward or punishment of Μι- 
not have said anything of news of this event being 3 ' ; 
Ψ a πὰ , thridates, nor so far as we know of Bagapates (or Maza- 
to the king; according to Ctesias, however, the 
d from the field as soon as he was wounded. story of Greece IX. 70 note) will not allow the imputation 


this place; but that Xenophon really meant by the 


expression εἰς Βλλην to contradict Ctesias, I do not doubt. Just so he 


‘rag - Ctesias An! . : 
Fragm. Ctesias (in 4 contradicted him in Anab. I, 7, 10, |, 9, , L 10, 15 and the whole 


a Artax. story of Cyrus fall. 


I, 7, 9 and Polyaenus, Strategemata II, 


34 


while what he says of the rewarding of the Carian, 
reported to have struck Cyrus, was given in c. 1δ. 


the punishing of each of the three just mentioned 

Plutarch committed to Parysatis, who according to 

account must have been at this very time under 

| ure of the king for the murder of Stateira, which 

presented by Dinon as committed during the war 

Mithridates while not mentioned by Dinon, is said 

ias to have been the first who struck Cyrus and 

his attendants is said to have picked up the saddle- 

to which allusion is made again in c. 14; besides in 

Mithridates is made to relate how he struck Cyrus 

ctly as Ctesias had related the same thing inc. 11. 

10) mentions the report that Cyrus fell by the 

the king, as if by no means unlikely; here it 15 

represented as false, which agrees precisel) with 

y of Ctesias in c. 11. Inc. 16 allusion 15 made 

to the wound of the king, which, as we have seen, 
asree with the story of Dinon. 

σ΄ considers the expression used by the host at 

ast (c. 15): “Let us eat and drink doing reverence to 

lemon of the king, and avoid expressions which are 


> 


,? 


for us” as so genuinely Persian that only Ctesias 
been the source. There is, it is true, in exc. 
the death of Mithridates is alluded to, 
his execution by means of the trough ! 
ee from exc. 30 that Ctesias had described this 
f punishment. The Carian or Kaunian‘ts alluded 
[4 as the one by whom Cyrus was struck on the 


just as Ctesias told in c. 11. There is no difficulty’ 


recard to his being called in this chapter a Carian, 
in c. 11 he was called a Kaunian; for as Haug 
the Kaunians were a tribe of Caria, and besides in 


sg of Ctesias he is twice called a Carian; so that the 


rms must have been used indiscriminately. In exc. 59 it 


simply stated that Parysatis tortured the Carian and then 
him to death, but we need not doubt that Ctesias 


described fully the mode of punishment, for his whole 
history shows that he was as apt at describing horrible 
methods of punishment, as Parysatis was at inventing them 
cf. exc. 54, 55, 57 etc.). The story of the punishment 
of Bagapates was related fully by Ctesias, as we see from 


- 


exc. 59, which agrees in every respect with Plutarch, except 


σ 
> 
k 


that Ctesias makes no allusion to the zmxpaling on three 
stakes. This was, however, evidently an omission of the 
excerptor, for it may be seen from exc. 36 that he had 
described this method of punishment. It is strange that 
the form of the name in Plutarch is so different from that 
in Ctesias, but the remaining proof is too strong to allow 
a doubt as to the source. We have in this chapter 
7), moreover, two allusions to Stateira as still living, 
whereas according to Dinon’s account she was long 
since dead. 

( 18. Ctesias is introduced as the source for this 
chapter and we have besides in exc. 60 exactly the same 
account. 

C. 13. From exc. 61 we see that Ctesias narrated the 
death of Stateira just as Plutarch gave it, except that the 
latter differs from Ctesias with regard to the immediate 
cause of the murder, which Ctesias alleged to have its 
motive in anger at the execution of Clearchus. With the 
few slight differences alluded to by Plutarch, there is every 
probability that Ctesias and Dinon gave the same story 
and with about the same fullness. 

( 21. There remains only the allusion to Ctesias in 
this chapter which has been already discussed above. The 
remaining’ events of this life belong to a period succeeding 


the close of the history of Ctesias. 


Xenophon. 


Anabasis and the Hellenica were the sour- 

of the information contained in this bio- 

very evident. Rehdantz (Kinleitung zu der 

7) says that Plutarch supplements here to 

xtent from the Persian side the first two books 

1\ophon’s Anabasis with which he was also acquaint- 

his is no doubt correct; but to what extent 

1on was used directly by Plutarch, and to what de- 

indirectly, it is impossible to say definitely. The 

has been discussed in the foregoing pages under 

We will here therefore simply point out the pas- 

here Xenophon seems to have been the source for 
h either at first or second hand. 

Δαρείου yap xat Παρυσάτιδος παιὸξς: 


Anab. |, 1. 


C. 2. ‘H δὲ μήτηρ ὑπῆρχε x. τ. λ., cf. Anab. |, I, 4. 


5 


Q - ; rar - 3 — » ὦ a »- ~- “«ὖ om - - δὲ ᾿ ΝΥ - 
ὀειχὕη βασιλεὺς λρτοξέρξης μετονομασϑείς, Kopoc ὃξ Λυδίας 
. ᾽ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 
΄ 


χαὶ τῶν ἐπὶ ϑαλάσσης στρατηγος; Cl. Anab. |. 9, 


δι Bee 


᾿ / 


3. Cf. Anab. 3—4 for Xenophon’s story of 


iphernes’ accusation of Cyrus, though Plutarch followed 
ther authority here. 

{. The allusion to Xenophon, with regard to the 

Greek troops of Cyrus, has reference to Anab. 

|. For the statement that his mother was present 

kk away the suspicions of the king, while Cyrus 
dutifully to his brother, cf. Anab. I, 1, 8. 

6. Cyrus’ application to the Lacedaemonians; cf. 

lll, 1, 1, though Plutarch in all probability did not 

ult Xenophon here. Number of Greek troops of Cyrus; 

nab. I, 2, 4 (cf. Il, 3, 19). Pretences assigned by Cyrus 

the expedition; cf. Anab. I, 2, I (III, 1, 9) and I, 3, 20. 

7. Belief prevalent in the army of Cyrus that the 


vould not fight; cf. Anab. 1, 7, 18—20. For the 


a vv 
ἣν 


number of the king’s army, cf. Anab. I, 7, 12; for the 
remainder of the chapter I, 7, 19 I, 8. 

( 5. Position of the Greeks on the river; cf. Anab. 
I, 8, 4 and 13. The king did not perceive that he was 
beaten (οὔτε νιχηϑεὶς αὐτὸς 7abet0); cf. Anab. I, 10, 5. 

Cyrus’ order to Clearchus to lead the Greeks against 
the centre; cf. Anab. I, 8, 12—13. 

C. 9. Victory and pursuit of the Greeks; cf. Anab. 


Σ δ 138—2I. 


C. 13. Embassy of Phalinus; cf. Anab. II, 1, 7. 

(. 20. For the cause of the expedition sent by the 
Spartans into Asia to relieve the Greeks in that quarter, 
cf. Hell. Ill, 1, 3, where it is stated that these cities sent 
messengers to Sparta begging aid against Tissaphernes. 
With regard to Thibron, cf. Hell Ill, 1, 4-7; Dercyllidas, 
ns, i, 3 2, 21; Agesilaus, III, 4, 2 sqq., IV, 1, 15 564; 
and IV, 2, 2; Timocrates and the bribery of the leaders in 
several Greek cities, II], 5, 1 and IV, 2, 1.. Except the 
saying of Agesilaus with regard to the 30000 bowmen of 
the king (cf. Plut. Ages. 15, 7), Xenophon must have been 
the original source for this chapter. Plutarch’s account of 
Timocrates and the bribery of the Greek leaders is pre- 
cisely that of Xenophon, and the evident partiality for Age- 
silaus points clearly to the same author. 

C. 31. Xenophon seems to have been undoubtedly 
the direct or indirect source for the latter part of this 
chapter. Cf. Hell. IV, 3, 11—12, account of the battle of 
Cnidus; IV, 8, 7—12, Conon and Pharnabazus win the sea 
from the Spartans; IV, 8, 12—13 ambassadors sent from 
leading Greek states to Tiribazus; IV, 8, 14, Antalcidas’ 
proposition to yield to the king the Greek cities in Asia 
Minor, stipulating only that the remaining cities and islands 
Should remain free; V, 1, 25, Antalcidas, with Tiribazus, 
returns from the king, having gained all that he desired, 
V, 1, 30—31, proclamation of Tiribazus to the Greeks and 
the rescript of the king. The evidence for Xenophon 15 
thus seen to be much better than for Ephorus (Haug 96) 


Schottin p. 8). But I think it very probable 
formed here an intermediate source between 
and Plutarch. 


Death of Tissaphernes, cf. Hell ΠῚ, 4, 25 and 


Capture of Aspasia at Cunaxa; cf. Anab. I, 10, 2 


Heraclides of Cumae. 
MULLER, Histor. Graec. Frag. Il, 95 


only other alluded to by name in this biography 
clides of Cumae. It is not known precisely when 
cf. Miiller p. 95) and we know definitely only of 
Ilepstxa in five books. Plutarch cites him in c. 23 
fact there alluded to is given in c. 27 (cf. Muller 
It is quite possible that Heraclides was used to some 
lsewhere in the composition of this life, but if so 


very little; and that little we have no means of 


authors are alluded to in c’s 3, 4: 


‘lsewhere, but the attempt to determine who they 


Υ 


what extent they were used has been without 


II. 

TESIAS’ REPORT OF THE 
BATTLE OF CUNAXA. 
MMEL in Philologus XXXIV, 516—538 and 665— 696. 


17 


vill not seem improper perhaps to add here a short 


ination with regard to the credibility of Ctesias’ report 


39 


of the battle of Cunaxa, so much of it at least as Plutarch 
has preserved for us in this life. Inasmuch as Ctesias was 
in immediate attendance on the king during the battle, we 
might expect to get an accurate and trustworthy report of 
just those events which Xenophon was obliged to relate 
from hearsay. But the slightest examination into his ac- 
count, especially in connection with the other reports 
of the battle that we have, shows that it is utterly 
inconsistent not only with Xenophon and the rest, 
but also with the very nature of the case. Grote, 
Curtius, Thirlwall and Rawlinson have therefore rejec- 
ted his account entirely and follow Xenophon alone.’ 
Lachmann puts the two accounts side by side, but does 
not decide definitely between them, or show how they 
can be made to agree. So does Rehdantz who accepts 
Ctesias’ report as true and supposes that he passed over 
‘n silence the second contest with the Greeks. Otto 
Kemmel in Philologus XXXIV, 516—538 and 665 —690 
gives a very lengthy and in many respects ingenious crit- 
‘cism and combination of the accounts of Xenophon, 
Ctesias and Diodorus; but I find it impossible to agree 
with him on many points, and especially with regard to 
the combination. It is his treatment of some of the main 
points of difference between these reports that will occupy 
us here. 

About after the following manner he proceeds with 
regard to some of these points. The time given by Ctesias 
for the wounding of the king is found to be not only in- 
consistent with Xenophon’s statement, but utterly irrecon- 
cilable with the circumstances of the battle, so, as it does 
not suit the combination theory, it is promptly rejected, 
and indeed as an addition of Plutarch, or some attentive 


1) Grote, Hist. of Greece IX, §9 sqq.; I.achmann Geschichte Griechen- 
lands II, 337—340; Rehdantz, Einleitung zur dritten Ausgabe der Anabasis 
p. XXVII—XXX; Curtius, Gr. Geschichte III, 135 ff.; Rawlinson. Ancient 
Monarchies III, 492 sqq.; Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece IV, 305 544. 


40 


ι᾽. 055). In order to reconcile the statement of 


that there was a short fight with missiles, then 
while the Persians resisted in hand-to-hand con- 
the Greeks, with Xenophon’s statement that the 


turned and fled before the Greeks came within 
+] 
Liie 


l 


phrase πρὶν δὲ τοξευμα ἐξιχνεῖσναι ἐχχλίνουσιν 

χαὶ φεύγουσιν is thus explained, that they 

lose that the arrows flew harmless over their head 

he time given by Diodorus for the second move- 

Persians against the Greeks, 7,67 νυχτὸς ἐπελ- 

; rejected for a like reason (Diodorus’ /or/e, forsooth, 
in the description of battles) (p. 686 


rt of the time when the pursuit of the 


~ 


=> »= >? ΒΒ = ἜΘ » ᾿ avy, sa ἢ . 
sysdov ὃ οτε ταῦτα ἣν, χαὶ ἥλιος ἐδύετο, that is the 


+ 


just as the messengers of Clearchus from the top 
“oP 


observed the troops of the king flying over the 


not accord with the theory which had made the 
t half an hour before, so it is to be translated: 
time when these things were taking place, the 
The time at which, according to Xenophon, 
reached their camp after the day's work was 
δορπήστον, must be incorrect, if the pursuit 
dark in place of sunset, and hence the second 
Diodorus περὶ δευτέραν φυλαχὴν is substituted for 
notwithstanding Diodorus certainly missed the 
both his other statements. The position which 
n assigns to Tissaphernes in the battle, and which 
itrap says himself that he occupied, does not accord 
dorus’ statement, hence in addition to the many 
ls of this deceitful satrap another must be added, 
to flatter the Greeks and give credit to the official 
of the Persian court with regard to the death of 
assigned to himsclf a totally different part in the 
m that which he really had (p. 681). Kemmel 


es that the battle began about 4— 30 p. m. (though 


far more probable that it began an hour earlier), that 


t5 p.m. Cyrus received the first wound and fell unconscious, 


AI 


that he lay long in this state, in fact it had become twi- 
light before he recovered sufficiently to attempt to go on; 
for it was so dark when the Kaunians approached them, 
that only when they were quite near could they distinguish 
the purple tunics of Cyrus’ troops from the white ones of 
the royal cavalry; then took place the remaining occur- 
rences as related by Ctesias. The object is to prove that 
the events related by Ctesias cover the whole time from 
the beginning of the battle, as given by Xenophon, till 
some time after dark. Xenophon’s account of the time, 
not only because of his general truthfulness, but because 
the nature of the events related by all parties confirms its 
accuracy, must be accepted; and, inasmuch as it is 1m- 
possible that an eyewitness who meant to be truthful could 
make such a statement, the 707) σχύτους ὄντος of Ctesias 15 
rejected as an interpolation. But a comparison of the 
statements of Ctesias in connection with the events related 
by Xenophon and Diodorus shows that Ctesias’ report did not 
admit of the lapse of so long a time between the first wound of 
Cyrus and his death, and that therefore there is no good reason 
to doubt that the phrase ἤδη σχύτους ὄντος really had its source 
in Ctesias. It is clear that the impression made upon Plutarch, 
who had before him the full account of Ctesias, was that the 
events related occupied only a short time. At the time the king 
is wounded there is flight and confusion of his body-guard ἢ); 
when Cyrus recovers sufficiently from the blow given by 
Mithridates to proceed, he hears his flying enemies call 
him king and beg for mercy. Who are these flying enemies! 


. Certainly no others than those who were put to flight at 


the first attack. We may accept as true the general course 
going on in the field at this time, ‘as related by 
Xenophon and Diodorus, and from these it is clear that 


of events 


after the dispersion of the immediate body-guard of the 
king there was no rout of any part of the king’s forces 
till they fled a second time before the Greeks. Cyrus’ fall - 


/ 


1) Cf. Ctesias in Artax. 11, Xen. Anab. I, 8, 25 and Diod. XIV, 23, 7—8. 


| 


= 


42 


1 


death — took place then in the sight 

was known to both armies; for that of 

is encouraged, that of Cyrus disheartened thereby; 

had lain so long unconscious there could be no 
enemies at this time. That there was continual 
turmoil in the rear of the king’s army is not to be 
ince this is totally at variance with the occurrences 

by Diodorus and also by Xenophon, and 15 incon- 
th the events stated by Ctesias to have taken place 

body of Cyrus. According to all reports there must 
period of quiet in the rear after the first c nfusion 
Besides the king had taken possession of a hill 

my (Artax. c. 11) and was, or could have been, 
mmuunication with it. Artasyras, when he finds 
dy of Cyrus, rides straight to the king; the 
infer) went also and announced his death 

1); there were plenty of attendants about the 

sent off 30 at one time to the body of Cyrus. 

long time had elapsed, that is from near the 

the afternoon till dark, the king could easily 
orward couriers and ascertained: that Cyrus was 
was thought so, and that the Greeks were 

n the left wing. But it is only just when he 

the news of the death of Cyrus, after dark, that 
rns that the Greeks were victorious in the first 
ment. If we are to accept from Ctesias that the 
the hill in despair and thinking all was lost 
we may be perfectly sure that this state of 

yas not represented as lasting three hours. ‘Then 
yrus and the eunuchs could so long escape notice in 
i. of the army, the number of camp followers of 
was probably nearly as large as the real fighting 
and these continually traversing the space in the 
we may infer from Plut. (c’s 11 and 12), is insup- 
Further it is not stated that Cyrus became totally 


nscious, or recovered slowly from the effects of the 


civen by Mithridates, but only that when he was 


43 


struck he bdccame giddy and stupcficd and fell from his 
horse. and that he recovered with difficulty and not thor- 
oughly. There is then really no ground for the supposition 
that he lay long unconscious, and every thing goes to prove 
that the events related by Ctesias cover a comparatively 
short space of time, and therefore the 707, σχύτους ὄντος iS 


perfectly consistent with his remaining report. 


Kemmel’s Objections to Xenophon s 


Narration. 


Xenophon states that Tissaphernes commanded the left 
wing of the Persian army and stood with the cavalry on 
the extreme left next to the river, that he did not flee 
with the remainder of the left wing when the Greeks at- 
tacked, but breaking through the line opposed to him 
entered the camp and began to plunder it, where somewhat 
later he was joined by the king (Anab. 1, 10, 7 and I, 8, 9). 
Diodorus (XIV, 23, 7) states that after the king was wound- 
ed Tissaphernes succeeded to the chief command of the 
Persian army and by extraordinary valor, aided by the 
fact that the news of Cyrus’ death had spread through 
both armies, proved completely victorious. Kemmel, assum- 
ing that Diodorus followed Ctesias here, rejects the state- 
ment of Xenophon and accepts that of Diodorus. There 
is no doubt that Tissaphernes is in part at least the author- 
ity of Xenophon for the position he assigns him, that 1s, 
in his speech to the Greeks (Il, 3, 19) he confirms what 
Xenophon had no doubt already heard from deserters and 
captives (cf. I, 8,9 with I, 7, 13). Is there any good reason 
for supposing that Tissaphernes made a false. statement to 
the Greeks? The only authority against Xenophon’s state- 
ment is Diodorus, but since it is very questionable, as we 
shall see below, whether Ctesias was the source for this 
particular statement of Diodorus, or not, and therefore 
doubtful whether it originated from an eyewitness, not 


much stress can be laid on it, Indeed if this account of 


it first wound or death took place thenin the sight of 
| g 


army, at least was known to both armies; for that of 


king was encouraged, that of Cyrus disheartened thereby; 
if Cyrus had lain so long unconscious there could be no 
of flying enemies at this time. That there was continual 
and turmoil in the rear of the king’s army is not to be 
ught, since this is totally at variance with the occurrences 
\arrated by Diodorus and also by Xenophon, and is incon- 
nt with the events stated by Ctesias to have taken place 
it the body of Cyrus. According to all reports there must 

- been a period of quiet in the rear after the first confusion 
Besides the king had taken possession of a hill 

Artax. c. 11) and was, or could have been, 


communication with it. Artasyras, when he finds 


dead body of Cyrus, rides straight to the king; the 
we may infer) went also and announce his death 

ες. 14); there were plenty of attendants about the 

for he sent off 30 at one time to the body of Cyrus. 

If this long time had elapsed, that is from near the 
iddle of the afternoon till dark, the king could easily 
sent forward couriers and ascertained: that Cyrus was 

it least was thought so, and that the Greeks were 

on the left wing. But it is only just when he 

ives the news of the death of Cyrus, after dark, that 
learns that the Greeks were victorious in the first 
vagement. If we are to accept from Ctesias that the 
lay on the hill in despair and thinking all was lost 
tax. c. 14), we may be perfectly sure that this state of 
was not represented as lasting three hours. Then 
Cyrus and the eunuchs could so long escape notice in 
rear of the army, the number of camp followers of 
vhich was probably nearly as large as the real fighting 
force, and these continually traversing the space in the 
as we may infer from Plut. (c’s 11 and 12), is insup- 
sable. Further it is not stated that Cyrus became totall) 
conscious, or recovered slowly from the effects of the 
siven by Mithridates, but only that when he was 


κι. ee Ὁ». “συ. = 
Li = ee A PT ere ng OO i at Pm pais, Εἰ ὁ ge ἜΕΨ.Σ 
ee ee Se 


" - "Ὡς 
(a SN 
ee ἣν» ἘΞ 5. an oe 


43 


struck he became giddy and stupcficd and fell from his 
horse, and that he recovered with difficulty and not thor- 
oughly. There is then really no syound for the supposition 
that he lay long unconscious, and every thing goes to prove 
that the events related by Ctesias cover a comparatively 
short space of time, and therefore the 70% σχύτους ὄντος IS 


perfectly consistent with his remaining report. 


Kemmel’s Objections to Xenophon s 
Narration. 


Xenophon states that Tissaphernes commanded the left 
wing of the Persian army and stood with the cavalry on 
the extreme left next to the river, that he did not flee 
with the remainder of the left wing when the Greeks at- 
tacked, but breaking through the line opposed to him 
entered the camp and began to plunder it, where somewhat 
later he was joined by the king (Anab. I, 10, 7 and I, 8, 9). 
Diodorus (XIV, 23, 7) states that after the king was wound- 
ed Tissaphernes succeeded to the chief command of the 
Persian army and by extraordinary valor, aided by the 
fact that the news of Cyrus’ death had spread through 
both armies, proved completely victorious. Kammel, assum- 
ing that Diodorus followed Ctesias here, rejects the state- 
ment of Xenophon and accepts that of Diodorus. There 
is no doubt that Tissaphernes is in part at least the author- 
ity of Xenophon for the position he assigns him, that 15, 
in his speech to the Greeks (II, 3, 19) he confirms what 
Xenophon had no doubt already heard from deserters and 
captives (cf. I, 8,9 with I, 7, 13). Is there any good reason 
for supposing that Tissaphernes made a false statement to 
the Greeks? The only authority against Xenophon’s state- 
ment is Diodorus, but since it is very questionable, as we 
shall see below, whether Ctesias was the source for this 
particular statement of Diodorus, or not, and therefore 
doubtful whether it originated from an eyewitness, not 
much stress can be laid on it. Indeed if this account of 


44 


‘us concerning Tissaphernes be from Ctesias, it 1s 


ther remarkable that Plutarch in the beginning of c. 14 


10 allusion to the rewards of Tissaphernes. As 

ve for this falsehood, as he calls it, A@sme/ considers 
lowing: to flatter the Greeks and especially to giv 
to the official falsehood of the Persian court, which 

| that Cyrus fell by the hand of the king. The king 
Kaemmel infers, have remained on the field. 

the official report claim that the king remained 

In Artax. 14 and 16 we have beyond 

official falsehood as Ctesias gave it. 

rewards the Carian he says: “1 give 

lings to you as second prize for good tidings, for 
rtasyras and after him you announced to me the 
Cyrus.” These words have meaning only on the 

iat the king was not present at the death of 
Artasyras first brought to him the news of 

of Cyrus, the king says in the official report, 

lows then that the whole story of his lying wounded 
despair on the hill, of the joyful announcement ol 
and the occurrences which took place in con- 

with Cyrus’ body, were not inconsistent with the 
statement. We must suppose this court statement 
been about as follows: the king was wounded, but 
contest he had struck Cyrus without knowing the 
effect of the blow; he himself was carried out of the 
| lay in bodily pain, consumed with thirst, and 
believing all was lost, until Artasyras brought 
the joyful news that Cyrus was dead; then came th 
ian and confirmed it, and when the thirty, who had 
sent to ascertain the truth of Artasyras’ report, 


rned, the king himself went to the body. 


If Tissaphernes really commanded the troops of the 


ifter his fall, as Diodorus states, it is hard to find a 
n why he should deny himself the glory of winning 
day when this conflicted in no way with the claims 
the king made. Since then Xenophon must have had 


many opportunities for learning the truth of the matter, 


and carefully collected and investigated reports of the battle 
Ι 


cf. Anab. 13; 1, 8,93 I, 8, 20; I, 8, 28—29; I, 10, 7; 


[, 10, 12); as his narration was famous even in ancient 


3 49) 


times for its clearness and simplicity in all its details, so 
that, as Plutarch says, he “almost represents the battle before 
the eye and brings before the reader the events not as having 
taken place, but as taking place”, we must prefer his report to 
that of Diodorus. It seems very probable that Diodorus, or 
Ephorus, accepting the report that the king was carried from 
the field and knowing that Tissaphernes was the leading gen- 
eral on the Persian side, both in rank and merits, arranged 
the matter as seemed to him most probable. The explanation 
that Tissaphernes really commanded the left wing, but was 
with the part of it nearest the centre and hence was not 
borne away by the attack of the Greeks, is not satisfactory 
Kaemmel 674). In the army of Cyrus, Ariaeus who had 
command of the left wing stood with a body of cavalry on 
the extreme left; Clearchus, who seems to have been 
appointed by Cyrus as commander of the whole right wing, 
stood near the extreme right of the Greeks; so we might 
infer that Tissaphernes was placed. The king and Cyrus 
each stood with a body-guard of cavalry about them, and 


so far as I can discover it seems to have been a custom 
with the Persians that the leading commanders stand with 
the cavalry, the king of course occupying the centre of 
the line of battle. Now Xenophons’ authority for the po- 
sition of the Persian cavalry of the left wing is indispu- 
table, inasmuch as he could see this himself and learn its 
movements from the Greeks of that part of the line, and 
when Tissaphernes says he was in command of this body 
there is positively no reason to doubt his truth. The ex- 
planation of the phrase πρὶν δὲ τόξευμα ἐξιχνεῖσϑαι: before an 
arrow reached them, because they were so near that the 
whole volley flew harmless over their heads, by which ex- 
planation Xenophon and Diodorus are to be made to agree, 
[ need not stop to consider; for it is as certain that it can 


406 


cain credit, as that Xenophon never intended it to 


understood. 


sa / 


expression σχεδὸν OTS ταῦτα FV χαὶ ἥλιος ἐουξετο 
mmel translates to suit his combination theory: “About 


time when these things were taking place the sun fad 


[his would probably never have occurred to any 


vho was not trying to reconcile Ctesias and Diodorus 


th Xenophon; but at any rate the proof is at hand, that 


phon meant that the sun set just as from the top 
hill the announcement was made to Clearchus 
the Persians were fleeing at full speed over the plain. 
the Greeks in their second pursuit of the Per- 
reached the village and halted, they saw, they said, 
summit of a hill above the village “the royal stan- 
nething like a golden eagle placed on a staff.” 

he sun had already gone down half an hour before,’ 
ould they recognize the golden eagle? There can be 
loubt that it was the gleaming of the golden eagle in 
sunlight that made it conspicuous. Besides, the time 
n the Greeks reached their camp after the day’s work 
ended is a proof of the correctness of this view. [his 
sion ἀμφὶ δύρπηστον does not accord with the com. 
tion theory, for, says Keemmel, if the pursuit came to 
till about half an hour after sunset (6—50) the 
would not have time to deliberate what they should 
ind get back to their camp by supper time. Of course 
but if the sun set when Xenophon said it did, there 
imple time. Compare the movements, which, accord- 


47 


had ample time to get back to their camp by supper time. 
It is useless to inquire here what may have been the usual 
time for the δεῖπνον among the Greeks, for that has nothing 
to do with Xenophon’s narration in this place. Xenophon 
refers evidently to the δεῖπνον of the army, and this by 
an army under march would be taken necessarily about 
dark; certainly not before, nor yet much after. The Greeks 
had had no dinner, and it is not at all likely that soldiers who 
had been marching, fighting, or pursuing all day, would 
now half-famished take until near midnight to get back to 
their camp and food, when this lay at most not more than 
3 miles off. Indeed it is impossible to imagine anything 
more accurate than the description of all the movements 
of the army as given by Xenophon, and especially with 
regard to the points of time mentioned by him he is per- 
fectly consistent with himself and the circumstances of the 
battle, and certainly could not have made a mistake if he 
meant to tell the truth, which nobody doubts." 


Disagreements between Ctesias and 


Diodorus. 


That Ephorus in the extract given by Diodorus was 
acquainted with and used to some extent Ctesias, especially 
as to the number of the royal army and perhaps the troops 
of Cyrus, as Kaemmel (521 sqq.), Ritschl (Opusc. 1, 440 
and others suppose; and also as to the double play of 
Syennesis, the statement that the king, after he was wound- 


to Xenophon, the Greeks executed between the middle ; 
: ἊΝ 6 ras removed fr - fie e fate Leno 
the afternoon and sunset, that is in about 3 hours, and d, was removed from the field, and the fate of Menon, 


will seem to be no reason to doubt that the Greel 


an hour after sunset by no means accord 


esented by him as sending off 30 attendant 
ids himself encompassed with much light, descending from 
hill (in all probability) to which Xen. alludes (see Ainsworth); 
‘aemmel should have said at least an hour after sunset, which 
vith Diod. 


can scarcely be doubted. But this only makes the case 
worse for Ctesias’ story of the battle and the fall of Cyrus, 


inasmuch as a comparison will make pretty sure that 


1})1 have no doubt that these definite statements of the time are meant 
not only to give an accurate view of the battle, but are pointed against 
Ctesias, as was Anab. I, 7, 13 (no. of troops in the royal army), I, 9, 3! 


(position of Ariaeus), I, 1, 7 (with regard to Phalinus). 


49 


phorus, just as Xenophon did, took from Ctesias 4 77 992 ᾿ 
p! J | , < tesias what Diodorus XTV, 23, 8. Plut. 11. 


-onsidered trustworthy and rejected the rest. Sear ᾿ ἷ ᾿ 
command on the left wing of | Recovering and attempting 


23. 6. Ctesias (Plut. c. 12.) Cyrus, resisted for awhile, | to go forward, he was struck 
but when the enemy began | again by a Kaunian, and 


vrus and the king occu- The king knew nothing of “alli 
5 5 5 a flank movement and he had | falling struck his wounded 


ying the centre of their | the victory of the Greeks at " : 
7 ’ : learned the death of Cyrus, | temple against a stone and 
he fled with his own troops. | died. 
Ctesias represents Ariaeus 
; as taking part in the conflict 
inst each other, hoping OTe 
ων, ὦ aoe Re igs with the king in the centre, 
aecide e pattie ya J 
| 5 and the death of Cyrus as 
not known to the royal 


pective forces saw what this time and only about the 
happened (the victory | time he learned the death of 
the Greeks) and hastened | Cyrus did he hear of it. 


contest. 


99 7. ΟΠ troops. 
saphernes succeeded to Ctesias represents the royal C. 13 


command, after the king | troops as defeated and only : : wea hie Ser Ἔα: 
: Number of the slain of the Ctesias says the official 


royal troops 15 000. report was 9000, he himself 
estimated at 20000. 

Night was coming on as the It was already getting dark 

Persians, after plundering Cy- | when the first conflict took 


ed, and by great valor | stopped in their headlong 
flight by the king’s showing 
them the head of Cyrus, so 
that he could not have been 


the authority for the part ᾿ V5 ͵ , 
ι rus’ camp, began to πιονε place (767 σχότους Ὄντος). 
Diodorus assigns to  lissa- a ᾿ 
out against the Greeks (767 
phernes. ga te 
vUxTOS ἐπελῦουσης.᾿) 


ξι 7s. 
ee ΝΟΣ C That Ephorus did not follow Ctesias exclusively is thus 
is elated Dy the victory vrus surrounded by ene- 7 ah - . 

᾿ , , Gea vy om quite manifest. The fact that the Lacedaemonians are 


about him rushed | mies is borne away is 
s borne away by hi brought into prominence does not point necessarily to 


midst of his ene- highmettled steed ee Ctesias as authority for Ephorus, for the same thing ap- 
en recklessly | nized by his enemies, as it pears in the narzation of Ephorus after the capture of the 
re but after- was already gerne dark, generals, where Ctesias’ account ended; for instance Chiri- 
incurring danger too and sought by his friends. sophus the Spartan is represented as chosen commander 
was struck by some Riding hither and _ thither, 

[ the common soldiers his tiara happened to fall 
l from his head and a young 
is death the troops of | Persian named Mithridates 1) That Ephorus meant by ἤδη νυχτὸς ἐπελθούσης, “night was now 
vere encouraged, | struck him on the temple coming on”, is clear from the fact that he says that Clearchus, ‘seeing 
5 ; (Θεωρῶν) that the centre was broken and the rest of the allies routed’, 

us, Who was in by the eye; and he fell, stopped the pursuit, If it had been already getting dark when the attack 


4 


pe 


εχ αν, ga ee 


50 


the Greeks in the place of Clearchus and no mention is 


made of Xenophon. 


[he account seems to me to have rather a Greck, 
. Persian coloring, and is in many points so like 


Xenophon’s description, that one might believe it was large- 


part performed by Tissaphernes, the times assi 


: 


copied from him, though disagreements, such as the 
ened for the 
lifferent events, the ditch dug by the king, slight differences 
vith regard to the interview with Phalinus; as well as many 
ther points where he is fuller than Xenophon, as for in- 


stance with regard to the rewarding of Tissaphernes and 


plans for the destruction of the Greeks, above all, 
wever, the fact that Xenophon’s part and merits in the 
treat are totally ignored, make it altogether improbable 
Xenophon was before him. The most probable view 
ms to be that of Kriiger (De Authentia Anab. Xenoph.) 
Volquardsen (Untersuchungen iiber die Quellen Dio- 
65 and 131) who consider Sophaenetus in his Ana- 
sis the chief source for Ephorus in the extract given by 


ft Yat rus. 


Dinon. 


\rtaxerxes Cc. 10. 


[he extract from Dinon which Plutarch gives is very 
rt, but in the main points agrees very nearly with that 
Xenophon, that is the king remained on the field and 


was present at the death of Cyrus. In both these points 


ne differs from the royal report which Ctesias professes to 


sive, as also in stating that the Carian, who claimed that 
had killed Cyrus, was rewarded for that service and 


vas made, Clearchus could not have seen anything at the distance 

soon after, the Persians reformed to march against the Greeks and 

> might was coming on, which would just leave time for the opera- 
ed by Diodorus. 


δΙ 

hot as a messenger of good tidings. The report mentioned 
by him, that Cyrus fell by the hand of the king, may have 
something to do with the royal official report. 


Justinus V, τι. 


His account is very short and unsatisfactory, but agrees 
with Xenophon, Dinon and Diodorus in the fact that Cyrus 
died in the thick of the fight. 


There are four authors then, besides Ctesias, who give 
more or less full accounts of the battle: Xenophon, Epho- 
rus, Dinon and Justinus, all of whom agree in stating that 
Cyrus fell in the midst of the battle. The probability 
against the truthfulness of Ctesias becomes stronger when 
we consider that his full narration was before Xenophon, 
who even quoted from him in two particulars, the wound 
of the king and the number of the slain, that there is 
scarcely any doubt that his history was in the hands of 
phorus, who made use of him in more particulars than 
Xenophon did, that Dinon also was most probably acquainted 
with his work; yet these all agree, while differing in some 
other respects, in rejecting Ctesias’ story of Cyrus’ fall. 

If the integrity of Ctesias as a writer were unimpeached 
his testimony would outweigh that of the four others all 
combined, inasmuch as he was the only eyewitness of 
them all and had every opportunity to know the exact 
truth. But between him and Xenophon there are grave 
and irreconcilable differences in point of time. Ctesias says 
for instance, when Artaxerxes was carried wounded from 


1) I think Justinus’ account must be traced to Ephorus as source; for 
the story that Cyrus was preparing secretly to make war upon Artaxerxes, 
before he had been accused by Tissaphernes of plotting against the king’s life, 
and that this was announced to the king, agrees exactly with Ephorus in 
Diodorus XIV, 11, 3 and 19, 2; also the allusion to the double play of 
the Spartans is in exact accord with Diod. XIV, 21, 2, where Ephorus was 
without doubt source for Diodorus. 


«ἦν. 
“ 


the field and Cyrus was borne away by his ungovernable 
horse into the midst of his enemies, that it was already 
getting dark, so that he was not recognized by his enemies 
and sought by his friends; according to Xenophon it was 
then just about the middle of the afternoon, or very little 
later. Ctesias says that when Cyrus was wounded the 
second time it was so dark, that only when the Kaunians 
came quite close could they distinguish white tunics from 
purple; that the events which followed about the king and 


the body of Cyrus took place by torchlight; whereas Xeno- 


phon says that before sundown the Persians had fled from 
this very hill (in all probability the same’) where the king 

reported to have lain, and at least an hour before, over 
the very region where Ctesias says all these events took 
ht be- 
fore the little band of Greeks. Again the statement that 


place, the royal army had passed in their second flig 

the friends and table companions of Cyrus fell over his 
body, especially Artapates, cannot be reconciled with Ctesias’ 
eport; for it is perfectly plain that according to him no 
ontest took place over Cyrus when he was wounded by Mith- 
ridates (cf. Kammel 681). The latter did not know who he was 
and only ascertained from the saddle-cover, which one of 
his followers picked up, that it was Cyrus he had struck. We 
cannot suppose a contest after this when the Carian struck 
him; for it is stated that only a few eunuchs were with 
him then, and Artasyras finds these same eunuchs sitting 
mourning by the corpse of their dead master. I cannot 
see that Xenophon’s opportunities for learning how these 
friends of Cyrus died, were not as good as those of Ctesias, 
and the probability that he would tell the truth is certainly 


sreater. 


1) Rehdantz (Einleitung zur Anabasis XXXIII, 66) thinks it the same. 
Kaemmel (Philol. XXXIV, 536) says the royal troops must have passed over 
very spot in their second flight before the Greeks. The first pursuit 
passed along the banks of the Euphrates, but in the second conflict the 


eks with their backs toward the river began the attack and pursuit. 


53 


These are not points in which one of the narrators 
might have made a mistake, but they are directly contra- 
dictory; if one was true, then the other was necessarily 
false. The time of the day, and especially the sunset, was 
a fact about which Xenophon could not well have made a 
mistake, and the events related agree perfectly with his 
account. Ctesias’ statement (c. 13) that the troops of the 
king were astonished when he showed them the head of 
Cyrus and that quickly 70,000 collected about him, leaving 
out all considerations of time, cannot be made to agree 
with the other reports of the battle; for this means that 
they did not know Cyrus was dead and were in doubt and 
fleeing, and only the sight of the gory head of their ene- 
mies’ leader, whom they thought alive and victorious, in 
the hands of their king, whom they supposed dead, or in 
flight, brought them to a stand. 

The only manner in which Ctesias’ account can be 
brought into any sort of connection with that of Xenophon 
and Diodorus is to suppose, that after the events quoted 
from him by Plutarch, the king went back into the camp 
of Cyrus and after that followed the plundering of the 
camp, the second meeting with the Greeks, and flight be- 
fore them, as told by Xenophon and Diodorus. But the 
late hour of the night, the fact that this presupposes a 
defeat of the whole royal line and not of the left wing 
alone and requires a much longer space of time, than ac- 
tually elapsed between the first attack of Cyrus upon the 
centre and the plundering of the camp’), makes this suppo- 
sition impossible. On the other hand we must suppose 
that Ctesias gave no account, or at least the most confused, 
of the battle itself, mixed up the two contests with the 


1) The events related by Ctesias could not by any means be embraced 
in the time allowed by Xenophon between the beginning of the battle and 
the plundering of the camp, for the Greeks had already begun the pursuit be- 
fore Cyrus made the attack on the king, and yet had gone only about 30 


stadia when they ascertained that the royal troops were in their camp. 


- δὼ 


Greeks, made the king’s troops totally defeated and ignorant 
of the fall of Cyrus, differed from Xenophon and Diodorus 


oth as to facts and time. Under these circumstances we 
can have no hesitation in preferring the narration of Xeno- 
phon. The whole story of Cyrus’ death, with Ctesias, rests 
upon the foundation that it was dark, which must of course 
re jected. 
| believe the whole thing is best understood on the 
ipposition that Ctesias, wishing to give a highly dramatic 
account of the death of Cyrus, did not concern himself 
ibout the facts of the case and constructed the story to 
uit himself. Was he capable of this? Aristotle, Antigonus, 
Lucian, Strabo spoke slightingly of his general integrity as 
. writer. If we believe Plutarch’s statement in c’s 6 and 
was given to just such dramatic displays at the ex- 
of truth. He did render a most incredible dra- 
account of the death and burial of Clearchus, and 
ay well suppose that he, who to do honor to Clear- 
chus made so improbable a statement as that Parysatis 
nurdered Stateira in revenge for the death of Clearchus, 
uld without scruple dramatize the death of Cyrus. We 
t further insight into his dramatic proclivities and talent 
from the extract given by Demetrius Phalereus (De Elocu- 
\ 222-- 23) concerning the announcement of the death 
yrus to his mother, which might be true of course, 
which no one will consider other than a dramatic 
ffort of Ctesias. Nor does the affair of the embassy 
vith Phalinus incline us to a better impression of his truth- 


fulness. 
Diodorus. 


Having been forced in the consideration of Ctesias 


unt of the fall of Cyrus to go pretty fully into an 
<amination of other events of the battle, it may not be 


ut of place to add a few words here with regard to Dio- 


if Grote (1X, 62) and Thirlwall (IV, 307). 


55 


dorus’ narration. He offers little that is credible in addition 
to Xenophon’s account. For instance the statement that 
when the army of Cyrus drew near to the line of the king, 
they received such a shower of missiles as might be expect- 
e’ from 400000 men (Diod. XIV, 23, 2), that is, that the 
fight began along the whole line at once, cannot be correct; 
for the whole army of Cyrus did not reach even to the 
centre of the king’s forces and therefore it was impossible 
for the whole royal line to become engaged at once. We 
ascertain the same thing clearly from Xenophon’s account. 
Cyrus and the king being posted with cavalry in the centre 
of their respective forces were necessarily in the front line, 
or in advance of the remaining line; as the king was out- 
side of the left of Cyrus an attack of the latter’s left must 
have struck the centre, or any portion of the left wing 
that was not swept away by the attack of the Greeks; if 
the latter, Cyrus would have been shut out from all view 
of the centre by those fighting between, and could not have 
stood watching what the king would do (Anab. 1, 8, 21). 
The centre had not yet become engaged, for the king find- 
ing no one to oppose him in his direct front, began to 
wheel his force for the purpose of flanking Cyrus’ army, 
and the latter, seeing this and fearing. that the Greeks 
might be cut off, rode against him. He had necessarily to 
change his position then nearer to the left, which he could 
not have done, if his own left was already engaged between 
him and the king. If, as Rehdantz assumes (Einleit. zu 
Anab. XXXII), Cyrus took his position later on the extreme 
left, the battle might have been going on in the remainder 
of the line, without interfering with Cyrus’ observation of 
the king’s movements, but neither in Xenophon nor Diodorus 
is there any statement to this effect. Besides, this would 
have brought Cyrus directly to the position of Ariaeus, 
who according to Xenophon stood on the extreme left; but 
Xenophon gives as the reason why Ariaeus did not fall 
with the remaining friends of Cyrus, that he was not pre- 
sent with him, but in command of the left wing. His state- 


56 


that there was a short contest with missiles, then a 
to hand combat (XIV, 23, 3), is in direct contradiction 
Xenophon’s assertion that the Persians ran before the 
came within bowshot (I, 8, 19). With regard to the 

id meeting too there is a contradiction, Diodorus saying 
the Greeks received the attack of the Persians bravely 
soon put them to flight (XIV, 24, 3), whereas Xeno- 
says that the Greeks rushed forward to the attack 
better will than at first and the Persians fled at a 
ter distance than before (I, 10, 11). No doubt can be 
ertained with regard to Xenophon’s accuracy in both 
for he took part in both attacks and was most 
bably in the centre with Proxenus. The motive Dio- 
assigns as actuating the king and Cyrus in their 
namely that they, seeing the victory of the Greeks, 

to decide the battle by a single contest (XIV, 

not only differs from that assigned by Xenophon as 
ting Cyrus, but could not have influenced the king; 
ccording to Xenophon (Anab. I, 10, 5), Ctesias (Artax. 
and Plutarch (Artax. c. 8), he knew nothing of the 

of the Greeks at this time. The role assi; 


᾿ 
o 


ned to 
iphernes is not credible, as we have seen above, being 
tradicted by Xenophon’s express statement and that of 
satrap himself. The time assigned by Diodorus for the 
lifferent events is not only in direct contradiction to Xeno- 
hon, but incompatible with the occurrences which he him- 
relates. The statement of the trophy set up by the 

; after the second pursuit ceased (XIV, 24, 4) is scarce- 

: be accepted, since Xenophon, who described the 
minutest details of the movements of the Grecks just at 
point, would scarcely have omitted it. Grote (IX, 63 
note) puts no faith in the statement that most of the 15 000 
dead of the king’s army were slain by the Greeks (XIV, 
24, 5). “As the Greeks”, says he, “lost not a man, they 
could hardly have killed many in the pursuit, for they had 
scarcely any cavalry and no great number of Peltasts — 
while Hoplites could not have overtaken the flying Persians.” 


a ee? 


Charles Forster Smith was born June 30 1852 in Abbe- 
ville County, South Carolina, United States of America. 
From his 7 to his 16 year he availed himself with as 
great regularity as possible of the rather limited educational 
facilities of that section. In Oct. 1868 he was matriculated 
at Wofford College, Spartanburg S. C., and June 26 1872, 
having finished the four years academic course, was grad- 
uated with the degree Baccalaureus Artium. During the 
year 1873 he was engaged in teaching at Greenwood S. C. 
Jan. 1874 he entered Harvard University as a resident 
graduate and studied Greek, Latin, German and English. 
October 1874 he was matriculated at Leipzig University, 
arid during the winter ‘semester attended the lectures of 
Professors Curtius, Lipsius and Fritzsche. The next se- 
mester he attended for a few weeks in Berlin the lectures 
of Professors Kirchhof, E. Curtius, Zeller, Grimm and Prutz. 
Compelled to return to America, he accepted in Oct. 1875 
a position as teacher of Classics and German in Wofford 
College. Four years of hard work put him in possession 
of the means of renewing his studies in Germany, and in 
Oct. 1879 he was rematriculated at Leipzig University. 
During the following semesters he attended the lectures- 
of Professors Voigt, Curtius, Lange, Windisch, Gardthausen 
and Meyer, in the winter semester 1879 attended as irregular 
member the romisch-antiquarische Gesellschaft of Professor 
Lange and the Seminar of Professor Curtius and at the 
opening of the summer semester 1880 became a regular mem- 
ber of the grammatische Gesellschaft of Professor Curtius. 

He takes this opportunity to offer to his instructors, 
both in Germany and America, sincerest thanks for the 
kindness and encouragement which he has always received. 


